Sitting of 30 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Northern Railway Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Matlock and District Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 26.
Selby Urban District Council Bill (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords]; Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 11).
Sir WILLIAM HOLLANDreported from the Committee on Group No. 11 of Railway Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, a letter was received from Mr. John Howard, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of illness, to attend the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Filey Improvement Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section B]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Bill; Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Bill; Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill; Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Birkdale Improvement Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Manchester with reference to the construction of waterworks and streets, and otherwise for better local government and improvement of the city, to extend the city, and to make provision with reference to the borrowing powers of the Corporation; and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further and better provision for the health, good government, and improvement of the borough of Bridlington; and for other purposes." [Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill, do meet in Committee Room B on Tuesday next at Twelve of the clock.
Ordered, That the Committee of this House do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships as proposed by their Lordships.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them there with.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords]; Bridlington Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Abbots Langley; Abersychan; Alva; Ashley; Astley; Atherton; Bardney; Barkston; Balcombe; Barry; Barry Dock; Beck Row; Bell Quay on Tyne; Birkenhead (six); Bideford; Blackheath; Bridge of Allan; Bruton; Burnbank; Burnt Fen;
  140
  Carthorpe; Castle Cary; Colsterworth; Commondale; Copley; Copperhouse; Cowbridge; Crowd Hill; Ditcheat; Durley; Eastleigh; Eriswell; Evercreech; Falkirk; Gateshead (two); Glasgow; Grangetown; Great Gonerby; Great Ponton; Hamilton; Harleston; Hazel Grove; Heswall; Hexham; Hinckley (two); Holywell Row; Howden; Kingsland; Kingswood; Larnyat; Leigh (four); Liverpool; London; Lower Tranmere; Mildenhall; Newcastle; Newcastle-under-Lyme; North Biddick; North Cadbury; Oakworth; Paddington; Pembroke Dock; Pentre; Pickworth; Pitcombe; Pontlothyn; Releath; Rhosyn yr Hafod; Roaches; Rochdale; Roche; Rosemelling; St. Peter's Quay; Saltfleetby; Scarlop; Soham; South Molton; South Witham; Springwell; Stenalees; Stoke-upon-Trent; Stonehouse; Stourbridge; Team Colliery; Tow Law; Usworth Colliery; Wallsend-on-Tyne; Walton le dale; Washington; Wath-upon-Dearne; West End; Weston; Woodhouse; Wrekenton; and Ynyshir; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Oxford, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS BILL.
  Petition from Grangemouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  Petition from Paddington, in to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Guisborough (two); and Cheltenham; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Sheffield, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAYS.
Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade on applications made during the year ended 30th June, 1904, under The Railway Companies' Powers

141
Act, 1864, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 235.]

MINT.
Copy presented, of Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Deputy-Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th June; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 236.]
WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
Copy presented, of Eighty-second Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 237.]
DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 23rd June, 1904, defining the limits of the Dockyard Port of Dover [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented, of order in Council of the 23rd June, 1904, entitled The Somaliland Order in Council, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented, of order in Council of 23rd June, 1904, amending the Order in Council of 19th November, 1902, regulating the currency of Northern Nigeria [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1865.
Copy presented, of Order in Council of 23rd June, 1904, authorising an increase of salary to the Cashier and. Store Officer at the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1875.
Copy presented, of Order in Council of 23rd June, 1904, appointing the Registrar of the Privy Council to be Registrar in
142
Ecclesiastical and Maritime Causes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK (REGULATIONS).
Copy presented, of Post Office Savings Bank (Constantinople and Smyrna) Regulations, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CONTINENTAL FREE PORTS.
Return ordered, "specifying the Ports on the Continent which are Free Ports, and giving the following information with respect to each of these Ports:

(1) Area of the Free Port.

(2) Whether the Free Port is portion of a larger Port area.

(3) Entries and Clearances of Foreign-going Shipping during the past ten years (a) in the Country to which the Free Ports belongs; and (b) in the Port of which the Free Port forms a part.

(4) Whether there is any and, if so, what taxation of goods loaded or discharged in the Free Port.

(5) What are the arrangements for the collection of Import and Export Duties on goods passing between the Free Port and the General Customs jurisdiction of the Country.

(6) Nature of inspection under which loading or discharge is carried on in the Free Port.

(7) Classes of Trade (transit or otherwise) for which the Free Port is mainly used."—(Mr. Charles McArthur.)

COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITT GS).
Address for "Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December. 1903, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding; £50, and those by agreement over £50." "And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 271, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Accident at Works of Messrs. Jos. Cook and Sons—Fencing of Machinery.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the death of a workman named Richard Drummond, which took place on Saturday, 11th June, at the works of Messrs. Jos. Cook and Sons, at Washington Station, through his clothes being caught by the shafting of an engine; and whether he has given instructions for the more efficient fencing of this shafting.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention had not been drawn to this case, and I do not gather from the Question that the accident, though most regrettable, possessed any exceptional features. I have no doubt I that the inspector, in the ordinary course, on receiving the report of the accident, inquired into the circumstances and took such steps with regard to the fencing of the machinery or otherwise as were necessary. I will call for a report and verify this.

  French Government and North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, seeing that the Government of Sweden were unable in 1899 to induce the French Government to participate in the North Sea Fisheries Investigation, will the British Government consider the expediency of inviting the French Government to take part in the scheme, especially in view of the fact that France equally with other countries will benefit through any information in regard to fish habits that may be gained.
  (Answered by Earl Percy): We have no reason to suppose the French Government would accept the invitation to participate in the North Sea Investigation at our instance, seeing that they declined when invited by the Stockholm Conference.

  Prohibition against Macedonians and Bulgarians Moving to other Parts of European Turkey.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the prohibition against Macedonian or Bulgarian inhabitants of the three vilayets moving to other parts of European Turkey has now been removed or relaxed, so as to admit of such persons entering Constantinople itself and working there at their usual seasonal occupations.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Grand Vizier promised Sir Nicholas O'Conor on the 13th of June that he would issue orders for permission to be granted to enable the refugees who recently returned to Macedonia to circulate freely in search of work, should they desire to do so.

  Naval Volunteers—Instructors and Travelling Expenses.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, because of their failure to provide a sufficient number of instructors to the Naval Volunteer divisions, the Volunteers themselves are, in several cases, paying coast-guardsmen to give the instruction necessary to enable them to earn their capitation grants; and whether, seeing that the Naval Volunteer regulations contain no provision for paying the travelling expenses of the men to and from their rifle ranges or boating grounds, and that a number of the Volunteers are working men upon whom such financial burdens press heavily, the recommendations set forth in paragraph 57 of the Report of the recent Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers will apply to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty have had the temporary difficulty in regard to instructors for Naval Volunteers brought to their notice; and it is believed that it is now practically overcome. They are not aware that any company of Naval Volunteers is now without an instructor except in the case of one company in the Clyde division, to which a man has been nominated, and his appointment is now under consideration. The Admiralty has approved the

  145
  grant of an allowance to meet the expense of travelling to boating grounds, gun drill places, and ride ranges.

  Combined Office of Chaplain and Naval Instructor.
  MR. LYELL (Dorsetshire, E.): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in how many of His Majesty's ships are the appointments of chaplain and naval instructor held by different persons; and whether, in view of the importance of cabin space, the Admiralty will give directions that in future no chaplain shall be appointed who is not qualified to act as naval instructor.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) There are 21 of His Majesty's ships in which the appointments of chaplain and naval instructor are held by different persons, and 27 where the two offices are combined in the same individual. The Admiralty recognise the desirability of utilising the cabin accommodation in sea-going ships to the fullest extent, but as there is considerable difficulty in obtaining the services of chaplains who are also qualified to act as naval instructors, no strict rule can be laid down.

  County Boroughs with Populations below 50,000.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would state the number of existing county boroughs with populations below 50,000 in England and Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) There are nine county boroughs with a population, according to the census of 1901, of less than 50,000.

  Railway Companies and the new Signal Alarm,
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has called the attention of any railway company to the new signal alarm recently submitted to him; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Since my reply to the Question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 12th of last month,† par-
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 1155.
  146
  ticulars of several inventions of the character referred to have been submitted to the Board of Trade and their inspecting officers, but I am not aware whether these include the invention which the hon. Member has in mind cannot undertake to direct the attention of railway companies to any particular invention.

  Rateable Value of Post Office Buildings to be Erected on Christ's Hospital Site.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General what action the Department propose to take in regard to the payment of rates in respect of the buildings to be erected on the site of Christ's Hospital, in the parish of Christ's Church, Newgate Street; and whether, seeing that Christ's Hospital: was only liable to pay on a supposed rateable value £2,488 (in virtue of an Act of Parliament, 35 Geo. 3, Clause 26), he will agree to have the question of the rateage of the whole site reconsidered, in view of the commercial value of the premises now to be erected by the Post Office upon it.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) When the Post Office buildings are erected and occupied the property will be valued in the same way as other Government property is valued, and a contribution in lieu of rates will be given on that valuation.

  Minting of Silver Coinage for Crown Colonies.
  MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the silver coinage used in the Crown Colonies is minted at the Royal Mint; and, if not, where is it minted.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The silver coinage used in the Crown Colonies is, so far as possible, coined at the Royal Mint; but when circumstances make it necessary to have it coined elsewhere it is minted under the supervision and control of the Royal Mint in this country. Recent coinages have been carried out at the Mint, Birmingham. Bronze for Hong-Kong.

  Right to Photograph Raglan Castle.
  MR. MCKENNA: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury

  147
  whether he would consider the expediency of abolishing the charges now made for the right to take photographs of Raglan Castle.
  (Answered by Mr. Vitt0* Cavendish.) Neither the Treasury nor the First Commissioner of Works has any jurisdiction in the matter, as Raglan Castle is not the property of the Crown.

  Beri-Beri in the Port of London.
  COLONEL LEGGE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Sir Patrick Manson, in an address delivered at St. George's Hospital on 1st October, 1897, that beri-beri is very common in the Port of London, especially among the lascars, and Sidi boys who in many instances form the bulk of the crews of the large steamers trading to the East; whether he can state how many cases are treated annually at the Seamen's Hospital; and what precautions are taken to prevent the spread of the disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to in the Question. I am informed that the number of cases of beriberi treated annually in the Seamen's Hospital in the ten years ended in 1900 averaged twenty-four. The disease is not regarded by the medical officer of the Port of London as infectious in the ordinary sense, and no special precautions are considered necessary.

  Indian Cable Rate.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the results achieved and the responsiveness of the traffic consequent on the last reduction of the Indian cable rate, he will assist the efforts of Lord Curzon for obtaining a further reduction of 2s. a word.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I should welcome the reduction of the rate to 2s. a word; but, until I am in possession of the figures of the working of the traffic for the financial year 1903–4, which completes the period of three years under the new system, I shall not be in a
  148
  position to say whether I am entitled take any action under the agreement with the telegraph companies concerned.

  Publication of List of Titled Persons in India.
  MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): To I ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the edition of the Year 1900 of a publication called the Golden Book of India (purporting to contain an alphabetical list of titled personages in India, published first in 1893), states on its title page that it is published by the publishers to the India Office; and, if so, will he say whether the India Office or other Indian authorities have assisted in its compilation or are answerable to any extent for the accuracy of its contents: and, if not, whether there is any intention on the part of Government to publish in the near future an accurate list of titled parsonages in India.
  (Answered, by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The title page of the book in question shows that it was published by "Sampson Low, Marston, and Company. Limited, Publishers to the India Office." The first words of the author's introduction are "No official authority attaches to this work or to any statement in it." I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of India to publish a list of titled personages in India.

  Duties of Royal Irish Constabulary at Ballinagore, County Westmaath.
  MR. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Ballinagore, county Westmeath, are engaged in herding cattle on an evicted farm in that locality; and, if so, whether they are acting in obedience to the directions of their superior officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police do not act as herds at Ballinagore. They do, however, afford protection to a herd employed on an evicted holding there and to the cattle under his charge.

  Earnings of the Burtonport Railway.
  MR. MCFADDEN (Donegal, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the amount of the gross earnings per mile per

  149
  week of the Burtonport Railway for the half-years ending 30th September and 31st March last; what was the surplus of the gross earnings of the line on the amount paid the Lough Swilly Railway Company for working same; and in what manner has the surplus been apportioned between the parties entitled thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In answer to this Question I would refer to the verbal reply given this afternoon by my hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the similar Question of the hon. Member for North Donegal.†

  Peace Preservation Act in County Donegal.
  MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the charge delivered by his honour Judge Cooke to the grand jury at Lifford, county Donegal, whereby he testified to the entire absence of crime throughout the county; and whether, on account of the crimeless condition of the county for years past, he will consider the revocation of The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881, at present in force in portions of the county.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Government do not consider it desirable to revoke the Proclamation of portions of this county under the provisions of the Act mentioned.

  Fair Rent Applications and Appeals in the Innishowen District.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of applications for the fixing of fair rents pending hearing by a Sub-Commission Court in the Innishowen district of county Donegal, and the number of appeals from the Sub-Commission and County Court at present pending in said district; when did any Sub-Commission Court sit in the district; and whether, as the majority of the cases have been pending before each tribunal for a number of years, he can say when those concerned may expect their cases disposed of, and if the Appeal Court could arrange to have all Innis-
  † See page 175.
  150
  howen appeals heard within the district, and not bring, as heretofore, the tenants to Londonderry.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There are twenty-two applications to fix fair rents pending from the district of Innishowen; seventeen of these appeared on a list the hearing of which was commenced at Stranorlar on the 28th March last, but the actual hearing of these cases has been delayed owing to the illness of the lay Assistant Commissioner for the district. They will, however, be heard at some convenient place in the district, with the remaining cases on the list, at an early date, which will be notified to the parties. Fair rent appeals are pending in only twenty-eight cases from the Innishowen district. A sitting to hear such appeals was last held in June, 1903, when all cases prior to January, 1900, were disposed of. The appeals now pending have all been lodged at various times since that date, and will be listed for hearing on as early a date as possible, having regard to the claims of other places. The Commissioners, however, can give no undertaking to hold their next sitting within that district.

  Through Booking of Goods on the Donegal Railway.
  MR. MCFADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Donegal Railway Company, which works the Stranorlar to Glenties line, gave for some years after its opening through bookings of goods, etc., to and from the station at Ballybofry on the latter line; that the working company have discontinued the through bookings to and from Ballybofry for some years past, and at present refuse to book goods, etc., at through rates to and from Ballybofry, and that the result of this stoppage of through bookings to and from Ballybofry Station is that goods for Ballybofry are booked to Stranorlar on the working company's line and then re-booked to Ballybofry from Stranorlar, the distance not being half-a-mile, at an extra cost of 3d. per ton to the consignee; and whether, seeing that the traders of Ballybofry have been in communication with the Board of Works on the subject and desire facilities for through bookings

  151
  to and from Ballybofry; and, in view of the complaints made to the Board of Works by the traders and merchants of Ballybofry, and of the inconvenience caused to them by the want of through bookings to this station, an inquiry will be directed to be held by the Board of Works into the complaints lodged by the merchants of Ballybofry into the conduct of the Donegal Railway Company in the matter, or such steps taken by the Board of Works as will ensure the removal of the alleged hardship at present suffered by reason of the refusal of the company to grant through bookings of goods, etc., to and from Ballybofry.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated. The Board of Works have communicated with the Donegal Company, and suggested a restoration of the through booking arrangements, but the matter appears to be one which those concerned should bring to the notice of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.

  Arrest of Martin Naughten.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a special Court held in Spiddal, on the 13th June, at which a man named Martin Naughten was committed to Galway Gaol on a charge of murder, it was sworn that the prisoner had been arrested by Head Constable Gerrity, although the prisoner had actually been arrested and cautioned by Constable Glynn before the head constable's arrival; and, if so, will he explain why Constable Glynn was not produced at the petty sessions to testify to the circumstances of the arrest.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Constable Glynn formed one of a party of police acting under Head Constable Gerrity. Constable Glynn discovered the prisoner in hiding, but the head constable charged and cautioned the prisoner. Both policemen were close to each other the entire time. The Crown solicitor did not think it necessary to examine at petty sessions both members of the police force, as the head constable's evidence covered every matter of importance.

  City of London Imperial Volunteers—Conditions of Service in South Africa.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, previous to, or during formation, or subsequent to the completion of the Corps of City Imperial Volunteers, any stipulations, agreement, or understanding were entered into by, or on behalf of, any of its members as to where and how the force should be employed in South Africa, whether at the front or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply is in the negative.

  Purchase of Army Commissions.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before the passing of the Act for the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, officers, on being granted direct commissions in the Army, paid a sum of money to the Government by way of purchase of such commission; whether any of the officers who so obtained their first commissions in the Army were afterwards transferred for service under the Government of India in the Bengal, Bombay, or Madras Staff Corps, now combined in the Indian Army; and whether, on such transfer, the whole or any portion of the sum paid by such officer for his first commission was credited to the Government of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) In reply to the first part of the Question, some officers paid for their first commissions and some obtained them without purchase. The payment, however, was not made to the Government but to the officer whose commission was sold. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the third part of the Question in the negative.

  Police Raid on Kaffir Mine Compounds at Johannesburg.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information respecting a police raid within the past few days on the Kaffir mine compounds of East Johannesburg, and the finding of machete knives hidden in the bedding of

  153
  each Kaffir; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries respecting the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no information on the subject, but I will make inquiry by despatch.

  Coloured Labour in Transvaal Gold Mines.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of coloured persons employed on the last day of March, April, and May of this year in the Transvaal gold mines, calculated on the same basis as the Return given by him on 26th May last, distinguishing between those in employ and at work.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.)—

  Transvaal Gold Mines.

  Coloured persons on last day of each month—

  At work.

  In employ

  —

  —

  March, 1904

  79,569

  73,667

  April 1904

  78,825

  73,246

  May 1904

  (Official Return of Mines Department with, these figures not yet received.)

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Channel Fleet and the Tyne.
    MR. RBNWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering that it is many years since the Channel Fleet visited the Tyne, he will endeavour to arrange for it to visit that river during the coming autumn.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The autumn programme of movements for His Majesty's ships in home waters has not yet been arranged, but the feasibility of acting on the hon. Member's proposal for a visit to be paid to the Tyne will be duly considered when making out the programme.

    Drafts for India.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the regiments,
    154
    batteries, and battalions proceeding to India during the next trooping season, also those regiments, batteries, and battalions which will be called upon to furnish drafts.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The following regiments, batteries, and battalions will proceed to India during the next trooping season:—

    13th Hussars.

    19th, 20th, and 28th batteries of Field Artillery.

    62nd, 64th, 77th, and 81st Companies of Garrison Artillery.

    2nd battalion Royal Fusiliers.

    2nd battalion Cheshire Regiment.

    1st battalion Royal Irish Regiment.

    1st battalion Highland Light Infantry.

    1st battalion Manchester Regiment.

    As regards drafts every regiment, battery, and battalion in India or the Colonies will require them during the next trooping season, and in the case of cavalry and artillery the drafts will be found from their groups, and in the case of infantry from their linked battalions.

    4th Battalion North Staffordshire Militia accident to Private Hill.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has had any report furnished to him as to the circumstances under which William Hill, of Fenton, a private in the 4th battalion North Staffordshire Militia, was shot at Lichfield last week; and what step he proposes to take to prevent similar accidents occurring in the future, by keeping ball cartridges separate from the dummies supplied for musketry drills.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No report of this matter has reached the War Office. I am inquiring into the matter.

    Sandhurst Examination Fees.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a sum of £3, with an additional charge of £1, is imposed on every candidate for Sandhurst previous to the examination; what is the object of this impost; and who receives the money.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTEK: The fee for such examination in London is £2 and at any other centre £3. This fee is fixed by the Civil Service Commissioners under Order in Council. The object of an examination fee is to meet examination expenses. The money is paid to the Inland Revenue through the medium of stamps and is paid subsequently into the Exchequer.

    Re-armament of the Artillery.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of new guns will be completed for India in the present financial year, and whether that will represent the entire number required; what number it is proposed to complete for the British Army in the next financial year, and at what cost; and what number will remain to be completed, and at what cost, in the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, when nearly the whole re armament, together with a large number of reserve batteries, are to be finished.
    MR. ARNOLD-EORSTER: Twenty-one batteries will be completed for India in the present year, this being the number demanded by the Indian Government. It is not possible to state at present what their future demands will be. It is at present contemplated that fifty-four batteries will be completed for the British Army in the next financial year at a cost of £1,300,000. Seventy-six batteries will then remain to be completed for the British Army in the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, at a cost of £1,850,000, of which sum £550,000 would not be paid until 1907–8.

    South Africa—Alleged Conspiracy to Murder Lord Milner.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to inform the House as to whether three men have been arrested in the Transvaal on a charge of conspiracy to murder Lord Milner, or any such charge, and whether one of them has been already deported by the police; and, if so, can he state whether the one so deported is a British subject, and, if so, upon what grounds and by what law he was deported; and whether it is intended to bring the others to trial.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have not yet received any information from Lord Milner on the subject. I will inquire by despatch.

    Beri-Beri in South Africa.
    DR. HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the beri-beri outbreak was first reported in this country more than a week ago, he can explain the causes of delay in receiving news from South Africa, and now give the House full information on the subject.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I gave the House yesterday all the information which I have so far received on the subject. The contents of the telegram from Lord Milner which I read yesterday appear to me to show that Lord Milner and his medical advisers do not regard the occurrence of this not uncommon disease as involving any very special difficulty. This accounts for his not having treated the matter as one demanding urgent communication home.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman received from Lord Milner any explanation of his failure to answer the cable?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have answered that Question.

    Trading Rights of British Indians in the Transvaal.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has received to the explanation called for from Sir Arthur Lawley regarding the statement made by him, on the 18th May last, that the decision of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal, confirming the trading rights of British-Indian subjects there, will not be tolerated; whether the reply explains why Sir Arthur Lawley made such a statement without the knowledge or sanction of the Secretary of State or Lord Milner; and will he place the Papers relating to this subject on the Table of the House.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have now before me a verbatim report of Sir A. Lawley's speech on this occasion, which I will send to my hon. friend. He will find that he has been misinformed as to its contents, and that the statement attributed to Sir A. Lawley was never made.

    Suicide of British-Indians in Natal.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Annual Report for 1903 of the Protector of Indian Immigrants in Natal that there had occurred in that year no fewer than thirty-one cases of suicide, being at the rate of 741 per 1,000,000; if he is aware that eight of these cases occurred among the free Indian community numbering 51,259, whereas twenty-three were those of the indentured class numbering 30,131, showing that the indentured labourers committed suicide in an overwhelmingly large proportion; and, if so, can he say whether the local authorities have been able to trace the causes to which this voluntary destruction of life is due; and, if not, will he at once order an inquiry to be made by an independent Commission into the matter.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen the Report referred to. The rate per 1,000,000 among Indians generally appears to be, from the figures given, 382 per 1,000,000 and not 741 as stated in the Question, the rate among free Indians and indentured Indians being 157 and 766 respectively. The Report states: A magisterial inquiry is made into the circumstances attending each case of suicide, and whenever the evidence tends to show that the fatality in any way resulted from ill-treatment received from an employer or employé, I make a personal visit to the estate and inquire myself into the circumstances. In one instance, and one only, did the evidence tend in this direction, but my own inquiry did not confirm this suspicion. Generally speaking witnesses state that they can give no reason for the suicide, and, if those who are supposed to know decline to give any information, it is impossible in many cases to arrive at even a probable cause. I may say that the
    158
    general rate among Natal Indians in 1902 appears to have been 333, and in 1901 383, so that the rate for the year 1903 is not altogether exceptional. This rate has been exceeded in Paris. I am not at present able to compare the rate with that which obtains among Asiatic races generally, and I understand that there are no returns of suicide in India. In any case I do not see that on the facts there is any ground for taking the unusual course suggested by the hon. Member.

    Expenditure of Maltese Government Department of Charitable Institutions.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total annual expenditure by the Maltese Government Department of Charitable Institutions, including hospitals; how much of this is contributed by the War Office and by the Admiralty respectively; are the military and naval hospitals open to civilians; has he considered the advisability of placing all the hospitals under one central authority; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of placing the civil charitable institutions under the control of a Maltese local government board elected by the taxpayers who support these institutions.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The total expenditure of the Maltese Government Department of Charitable Institutions, including hospitals, is estimated in the Colonial Estimates for 1904–5 at £56,337,14,10. None of this expenditure is contributed by the War Office or the Admiralty. The military and naval hospitals are not under ordinary circumstances open to civilians. I have not had under my consideration the questions referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's Question, and I am not aware of any sufficient reasons for modifying existing arrangements.
    MR BOLAND: As neither the War Office nor the Admiralty make any contributions to this expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing the people of Malta to look after their own hospitals for which they pay?

    Northern Nigeria—Finance.
    MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the explanation of the increase in the ordinary expenditure of Northern Nigeria from £62,579 in 1900–1901 to £482,889 in 1903–4; what proportion of this expenditure is for armed forces and what is the nature and object of any military expeditions that are now going on; and whether, in view of the amount of the local revenue and of the commerce of the country, and of the fact that the expenditure of last year has been met by a contribution of £50,000 from Southern Nigeria and a Parliamentary grant of £405,000, he can see his way to undertake that immediate efforts will be made to reduce this outlay.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The ordinary expenditure of Northern Nigeria in 1903–4 is estimated at £382,889, not £482,889. As shown in the statement presented to Parliament (Cd. 2101) the expenditure of £62,579 in 1900–1 does not include expenditure amounting to £145,400 on the West African Frontier Force in that year. The expenditure on the Force in 1903–4 is estimated at £167,591 out of the total of £382,889, leaving £215,398 as the estimated ordinary civil expenditure. The reasons for the increase of expenditure are explained in Sir Frederick Lugard's Annual Reports which have been presented to Parliament. No military expeditions are now going on. The local revenue, though expanding, is still very small. No unnecessary expenditure is incurred. It is hoped that the increase of local revenue may admit of a reduction in the grant-in-aid from Imperial funds in future; but no undertaking in the sense suggested by the hon. Member can be given.

    Administration of Panna.
    MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.); I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any objection to let the House know the date and purport of the original and specific Report or communication which induced His Excellency the Governor-General of India in Council, after obtaining the concurrence of the Secretary of State for India, to assume
    160
    the administration of the Principality of Panna, in Central India, in September, 1901, and to suspend the then Ruling Chief of that State; and, if he has any reasons for refusing to publish such Report or communication, will he state what they are.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The circumstances of the death of the uncle of the late Maharaja of Panna, on the 25th June, 1901, were such that the Agent to the Governor-General ordered the Political Agent to hold a local inquiry without delay. The result of the inquiry was to establish that the deceased had died by poison, and to implicate the then Maharaja in the crime. The report was submitted to the Government of India on the 19th August, 1901, who, on the 1st September, issued the orders referred to by the hon. Member. The views of the Government of India, and the action taken by them on the findings of the Special Commission which was subsequently appointed to investigate the charges judicially, were published in the Gazette of India, in a Resolution dated the 21st April, 1902. As to presenting Papers, I agree with the late Secretary of State in declining to do so. It would not be in the interest of the State itself to publish the details. The facts are sufficiently stated in the Resolution published in the Gazette of India.

    Indian Statistical Department.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if there is a separate department or any special provision for the compilation of statistics in India; and, if so, what is the annual amount expended on the work.
    MR. BRODRICK: For the compilation of Indian statistics the Government of India maintains a special department; that of the Director-General of Statistics, and the amount expended on this department in the year 1902–3, the last year for which the returns have been made up, is £6,040. These charges are in addition to those incurred on various establishments for gazetteer and statistical memoirs, railway and river traffic statistics, and provincial statistics; the charges for

    161
    these in the year 1902–3 amounted to £23,629.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: Then may I ask my right hon. friend if it is beyond the capacity of a department maintained at so much expense to give the Return regarding labourers in plantations and mines which I asked for on the 14th June?
    MR. BRODRICK: I stated at the time the reasons which in my opinion made it undesirable to do so.

    British East Africa.
    MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before granting a charter to any syndicate to control territory in British East Africa, he will lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the proposed grant; and if, before the grant is confirmed by the Foreign Office, an opportunity will be given for the opinion of the House to be taken on the matter; and whether the Government can transfer British territory to a syndicate without the consent of Parliament.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): It is not proposed to grant to any syndicate a charter enabling them to control territory in British East Africa.

    Foreign Sailors on British Ships—The "Southern Cross."
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Messrs. Houlder Brothers, shipowners, and owners of the ss. "Southern Cross," have employed a man named Bethel at Antwerp to engage and supply 35 sailors and firemen for the steamer "Southern Cross," which is at present lying in the port of the Tyne; and, if so, whether he can state the nationality of those seamen, if they, are able to speak the English language, and the wages these men are to receive per month; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the engagement and supply of crews to British ships by
    162
    persons not licensed by the Board of Trade, he intends to take any action in the matter; and whether he is aware that there is a large number of sailors and firemen unemployed at the Tyne ports.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): From the inquiries which I have caused to be made it appears that twenty-eight seamen were engaged at the Consulate General at Antwerp to serve on the "Southern Cross," but it is not clear that Bethel was concerned in the supply of the men. Of the twenty-eight men engaged I understand that six were Germans, one an Austrian, one belonged to the United States, three were Dutch, one Danish, two Swedish, two French, three Greek, seven Belgian, one Italian, and one Spanish. It is reported that they had a fair knowledge of English, and all but three produced certificates of discharge showing service in British vessels. The wages of the eight A.B's were £3 5s., a month, of the eighteen firemen £3 15s. and of the two deck boys £1 a month. Upon the information before me I doubt whether the engagement of the men at Antwerp constitutes an infringement of the provisions of Section 111 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but the Board of Trade are being legally advised upon the point.
    MR. NANNETTI: And could not sailors have been obtained at the port from whence the vessel sailed?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no reason to think they could not.

    Licensing Bill.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state approximately the value of the licensed premises to which the Bill before the House applies; the maximum capitalised amount that could be raised by quarter sessions for the purpose of closing specified licensed premises; the approximate extra value that would be given to the licensed premises remaining by the decreased contribution and by the absolute fixity of tenure secured for a long period.
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKEKS-DOUGLAS,): I find it extremely difficult to understand the precise meaning of the various parts of the Question: but, so far as I can see, it is impossible to produce any useful figures such as the hon. Member appears to desire.

    Swine Fever Regulations in Aberdeenshire.
    DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that while there is no swine fever in the North of Scotland, the Board of Agriculture has brought pressure to bear on the local authorities of the city and county of Aberdeen and counties of Banff and Kincardine to pass a swine fever order, forbidding the movement of swine into or out of their districts except under restrictions, and that these local authorities have, under pressure from the Board, passed such orders; and, if so, will he state the necessity for such orders; and whether, in view of their effect upon the swine trade in these districts, steps will be taken for their reconsideration.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: The regulations referred to by the hon. Member were adopted by the local authority on the suggestion of the Board, and they have for their object the protection of the county against the introduction of infection from outside. They do not impose restrictions upon the movement of swine out of the district, and are on the lines of those which in many parts of Great Britain have been found by experience to combine a minimum of restraint upon trade with a maximum of effectiveness against disease. Indeed, it is to their general adoption that the present improved position with regard to swine fever must be largely attributed. The necessity for some such local protective measures, especially in counties themselves free from infection, is well shown by the case of another Scotch county—Ayrshire—where in the absence of efficient regulations no fewer than forty-nine outbreaks
    164
    of swine fever have recently occurred owing to the introduction of a consignment of swine from England. There is no objection on our part to counties with a clean bill of health combining together to adopt the same regulations and so widening the area in which free movement is allowed. An arrangement of this character will, we understand, be adopted by Aberdeenshire and the adjoining counties.

    Licence Fees in North Ireland.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the amount received annually by the clerk of the peace for the city of Belfast for the registration of the 649 licences to sell beer and spirits in that city amounts to £81 2s. 6d., or since 1874 £2,433 15s., which first-named sum is made up by his charging a fee of 2s. 6d. for each licence; and whether he will state the purpose to which these fees are devoted.
    I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the clerks of the peace for the county of Antrim and the city of Belfast are in receipt of a fee on the annual renewal of a publican's licence; and, if so, under what statute are such fees authorised; and whether, under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1874 the payment of any fees whatever in respect to renewal of a licence to sell spirits or beer is prohibited.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I believe the average annual sum received in respect of fees on licences by the clerk of the peace for Belfast in recent years amounts to about £81. I am unable to ascertain what the fees amounted to so far back as 1874. These fees are, under the provisions of the 10th Section of the Licensing Act of 1833, as amended by the 15th Section of the Licensing Act of 1874, received and retained by him as part of the emoluments of his office and especially in respect of his labour in keeping a register of licensed traders. Section 17 of the Act of 1874 deals with an entirely different matter, namely, the fee paid to the petty sessions clerk on the granting by the justices of their

    165
    certificates. When the offices of Clerk of Peace and Crown are amalgamated the former fees are retained by the revenue officer and paid into the Treasury under the 16th Section of the Revenue Act of 1898.

    Dublin Metropolitan Police—Constable Whyte's Case.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why twenty-seven constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have been promoted to the rank of sergeant over the head of Constable T. Whyte, who was their senior and qualified for promotion.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I am informed that this constable was not promoted because he was not considered to be properly qualified for the rank of sergeant. Seniority is an element, but not the determining element, in considering a man's fitness for promotion.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of promoting Constable Whyte to the Custom House Steps staff.

    Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of A. P. Doolan, of Shinrone, King's County.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Amos Palmer Doolan, who was evicted from his farm at Derry MacEdmund, near Shinrone, King's county, his yearly rent being £142; whether he is aware that the agent became tenant of the evicted holding on the 25th September, 1903, at the yearly rent of £72; and, if so, can he state when Doolan made application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement, and with what result; and whether, seeing that the landlord, J. H. Lloyd, has agreed to sell this estate to the occupying tenants, the Estates Commissioners, before sanctioning advances for purchase, will fully investigate the facts and take into consideration Doolan's claims.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This property has not yet come before the Estates Com-
    166
    missioners. The evicted tenant named in the Question has applied for reinstatement, and his application will be duly considered.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): Is it the case that the agent of the estate now occupies the farm?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I believe that is so.

    Ballingeary Police Force.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of police at present stationed at Ballingeary; and, seeing that there were only eleven cases from the village tried at petty sessions during the past year, will he explain what necessity now exists for the continuance of this police barrack; and whether the peace of the district could not be efficiently protected from the other barrack in the parish.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A sergeant and four constables. The question of the necessity for the continuance of the barrack is one for determination by the authorities locally responsible for the maintenance of the public peace. These authorities do not consider the barrack can be dispensed with at present.

    Land Purchase in County Kerry-Alleged Arbitrary Action of Landlords.
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the estate of Mr. G. A. G. Hickson, of Gortullea, county Kerry, who is a middleman under Trinity College, the tenants have been proceeded against for rent at quarter sessions because they refused to agree to the terms of purchase stated by the agent, and that the amount proceeded for includes the hanging gale, which has never hitherto been demanded; and, if so, whether he can do anything to protect these tenants, pending the decision of the Vice-regal Commission appointed to inquire into such cases.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

    167
    Ireland whether he is aware that the Receiver under the Land Judge on the M'Cartie Estate, in the county of Kerry, on 22nd June, 1904, issued a letter to the tenants stating that the estate would not be sold for eighteen and a-half years purchase, and that an order had been made to proceed against the tenants; and, if so, will he state whether the Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of these estates; and, if not, what steps he proposes to prevent such methods of forcing these tenants into unreasonable bargains.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of Mr. F. R. Bateman, Tralee, have paid, from 10th March, 1903, to 18th January, 1904, three gales rent, and have now been prosecuted for a fourth gale within a twelvemonth, and that these proceedings have been instituted for the purpose of forcing the tenants to accept the terms of purchase which Mr. Bateman is demanding; and whether any legislative steps will be taken to protect tenants from such exercise of their powers on the part of landlords.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This is one of three Questions falling within the same category to which it will be more convenient for me to reply together. I have no official information respecting the matters of fact alleged in the first and third Questions. With respect to the first part of the second Question the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court is not aware whether a letter was issued by the Receiver to the tenants in the terms stated. It is the fact, however, that the Land Judge recently made an Order giving the Receiver liberty to proceed for recovery of the rents on the McCartie Estate, which the tenants were withholding. On the general question I have to observe that the Land Purchase Act does not abolish any rights, either of tenants or landlords, in respect of the payment of rent. Legislation to affect these rights would, in my opinion, be most prejudicial to the successful working of land purchase on the lines laid down by the Land Conference. The hon. Members who put these
    168
    Questions seem to suggest that a landlord should be debarred from suing for money owed to him pending a sale. The obvious objections to such a course must be apparent, if they will consider the opposite case of a number of tenants asking for a reduction on rent pending a sale. Section 13 of the Act of 1881 amply protects tenants from oppressive proceedings for recovery of rent, and Section 10 of the Purchase of Land Act, 1885, confers on the Land Commission all the powers of a Court of Equity to rescind contracts into which one of the parties has been by duress forced to enter In addition to these protections, under the Purchase Act of 1903 an inspection in respect of security is obligatory in the cases of all holdings other than those specified in Section 1, i.e., judical rents inside the zones.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him if it is not a fact that under the Act of last year sales should be voluntary, and whether in this case the landlord is not now using powers he never possessed before in order to induce the tenants to buy?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has not quite seen the purport of my reply. If tenants came in in a batch and said, "We want a reduction of 20 per cent.," that may be described as bringing pressure to bear, but it is far better they should come together amicably.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): The right hon. Gentleman says the tenants are protected from aggressive proceedings. Is he aware that in this very district landlords have proceeded against the tenants for the recovery of rents not yet due?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I would suggest to hon. Members interested in the Answer that they should see the written Answer. It relates to legal matters.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of my Question asking "whether a certain landlord having been paid three gales rent is how proceeding for a fourth in the same twelvemonth?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I did answer that. I said I have no information, and I have no means of information about the particular facts referred to by the hon. Member.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.

    Listellick Farm.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any steps to purchase the farm recently put up for sale at Listellick, county Kerry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question of the purchase of this property will probably be considered by the Board at its next Meeting on the 15th July.

    Coleraine—Alleged Police Persecution of a Publican.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of a police constable named Molloy at Coleraine Petty Sessions in a prosecution against a hotel keeper for breach of the licensing laws; whether he is aware that this constable threatened one of the witnesses that whether he would be summoned or not in future would depend on the way he would give his evidence, and that the case was dismissed; and, if so, will he say whether the constable has been censured for his conduct.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The constable used no threat. He stated to one of the witnesses that if he told the truth he might not be summoned. This was an improper observation and the constable has been so informed.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Will this constable be removed from the district?
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put an end to this systematic persecution of this publican, which has become a matter of public notoriety?

    Irish Veterinary Department—Catholic Official's Salaries.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state what substantial advantages have been received by the Catholic officials of the Veterinary Branch of the Agricultural Department in addition to pension rights; whether the new arrangement carries with it any reduction in salaries; whether he is aware that these officials on their present scale of increment would have served thirteen years before receiving salaries of £2 a week, and that the pension after twenty-six years service and upwards would be only 15s. a week; and whether any effort will be made to improve their position.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Question presumably refers to some temporary clerks who were employed at weekly rates of pay before they were placed on the permanent establishment of the Department. In addition to pension rights they obtained the advantage of a more secure position, annual increments of salary, and sick leave privileges on full pay. As temporary clerks they were paid at the rate of 35s. a week, which is equivalent to £91 a year; on promotion they were paid an initial salary of £90. A salary of over £2 a week will be reached after six years established service; had they remained on a temporary footing their remuneration would have continued stationary at 35s. a week. No question of religion enters into Departmental promotions, and the Department is at all times ready to consider the claims of its officers for advancement when opportunity arises.

    Wicklow Camp Canteen Licence.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has considered the action of Mr. James Shanks in signing a licence certificate for a canteen situated in the county Wicklow, Mr. Shanks not being a magistrate for that county, and the local magistrates having refused to grant the licence on the ground that the canteen had been conducted in a disorderly manner; and whether he can now state what decision

    171
    the Lord Chancellor has come to in regard to Mr. Shanks' action.
    MR. WYNDHAM: NO decision has yet been come to. The Lord Chancellor is in correspondence with Mr. Shanks in the matter.

    Kerry Parish Committees—Management Rules.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the rules regulating the management of parish committees in Kerry have not been published; whether, under those rules, a district councillor who is a shopkeeper, or resides in a shopkeeper's house, or is a relative of a shopkeeper, is not allowed to act on the committee, and, if so, for what reason; whether he will explain the meaning of the word "shopkeeper" and state what classes of men it includes; whether landlords and their agents to whom the small landowners, for whom the scheme is meant, owe arrears of rent are allowed to be members of the committee; and, if so, will he state what is the cause of this difference of treatment.
    MR. FLAVIN: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the scheme for parish committees in Kerry is being blocked by the rule debarring district councillors who are shopkeepers from serving on the committees; and whether, in the interest of this scheme, he will at once withdraw this rule.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The rules have been freely supplied to persons locally interested, to members of the committees and to all other persons who have made application for them to the office of the Congested Districts Board. The rule prohibiting a shopkeeper, or a member of his household, from membership of a committee was adopted in the interests of the impartial administration of grants by the committee, the Board being of opinion that persons interested in the sale of materials or goods should not be eligible for membership of a body entrusted with the duty of dealing with applications for grants to enable them to purchase
    172
    materials or goods. Resident landlords and agents are eligible for membership. They have no direct interest in the sale of materials. The rule in question has hitherto worked satisfactorily and it is not proposed to withdraw it.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked if it were the fact that the rules were not followed and if, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would not withdraw them.
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied suggesting that that was unreasonable as the rules were in operation in other parts of Ireland.

    Phœnix Park, Dublin.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state by whose authority the most convenient parts of the Phœnix Park, Dublin, are railed off and preserved for polo and cricket; and whether, seeing that the Phœnix Park is a public park belonging to the citizens of Dublin, he will explain why the members of Sluagh na Heireann, most of whom are school boys, are prevented from playing native games in the Nine Acres; and whether he will consider the advisability of requiring the members of the polo club to go out to the Fifteen Acres.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The duties and powers of the Commissioners of Public Works in respect to the Phœnix Park are conferred by the Statute 23 and 24 Vict, cap. 42. The park is a Royal park and is the property of the Crown. With respect to the remainder of the Question, the hon. Member's attention does not appear to have been directed to my reply to the similar Question on the 16th instant of the hon. Member for the College Green Division.†
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Am I to understand from the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Phœnix Park in Dublin is under the control of the Board of Works by statute and is not belonging to the people of Dublin?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I believe that is so. At the same time the citizens in no
    †See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 286.

    173
    part of Ireland enjoy so much liberty as those in Dublin.

    Development of Small Industries in Ireland.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to arousing a spirit of enterprise in Ireland, he will consider the desirability of putting before the people such object-lessons as a number of small industries in successful operation in various districts; whether he will consider the best means for organising such small industries through the agency of the Agricultural Department; and whether he will take steps to utilise the acquirements of the children about to be trained in technical schools when fit for work, in order to check emigration.
    MB. WYNDHAM: The Department, acting in co-operation with local authorities or associations, has been engaged, for some time past, in conducting experiments of the character indicated. For example, shirt-making at Dundalk and Sligo; straw hat making at Wexford; furniture at Athlone; and hosiery at New Ross, Carlow and Cavan, Experiments of a similar character at Bandon and Clonmel are at present under consideration.

    Enlargement of Kilclooney Burial Ground.
    MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what price per acre the Congested Districts Board purchased the Kilclooney property, and what sum per acre the Board is asking from the Tuam District Council for the land required to enlarge the Kilclooney burial ground.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The average price of the Kilclooney property was £19 per statute acre, but the best land on the estate, such as that to be sold to the Tuam District Council, is estimated to have cost the Board £45 per statute acre.

    Blakeney Estate, County Galway.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Blakeney Estate, Abbert, county Galway,
    174
    is in the Land Judge's Court; if so, for how long; whether he can state the name of the agent or receiver; whether he has been instructed to take advantage of the Land Purchase Act; and whether he will be directed to supply to the tenants any necessary information to enable them to make an offer for the property.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The position of this estate is being investigated, and I will ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question till Tuesday next.

    Clanricarde Tenants and Sporting Rights.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five of the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, Woodford, have been served with notices to quit in consequence of their asserting their right to the game on their lands; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the police shall not be allowed in the future to accompany poachers on the lands, seeing that such proceedings may intimidate the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: This is a case in which two parties assert a right to one and the same incorporeal hereditament, i.e., the shooting. It is for them to prove such rights by due course of law. It is for the police to prevent a breach of the peace. The hon. Member describes one of the parties as "poachers," but that involves the decision of the very matter in dispute.

    Rae Estate, Keel, County Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on the Rae Estate, Keel, county Kerry, have applied to the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate; whether the beneficial owners have signified their consent to sell; whether the Congested Districts Board have made any offer or taken any steps preliminary to an offer.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Such an application has been made by the tenants, and the Board is in correspondence with the owners.

    Buncrana and Cardonagh Railway.
    MR. O'DOHEKTY (Donegal, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the traffic accounts of the Buncrana to Cardonagh Railway and the Letterkenny to Burtonport Railway have been settled half-yearly, as provided for by the Orders in Council authorising the construction of said lines; if he can say what has been the gross earnings per mile per week in each half-year of said railways; if not, what has been the cause of delay in settling the accounts; whether the accounts, as furnished by the working company to the Treasury or the Board of Works, have been accepted by them as satisfactory; if not, why have steps not been taken to compel the working company to furnish accurate accounts; and whether he can say what is the available surplus in each available for distribution between the Treasury and the working company after providing for the working expenses.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The accounts of the Burtonport Railway are not made up for the half-years ending 31st March and 30th September, but for half-yearly periods ending 30th June and 31st December in each year. The line was opened on 9th March, 1903, and the first accounts were made up to the 30th June following. The last accounts were for the half-year ended 31st December. The amounts of the gross earnings per mile per week for the period ended 30th June, and for the half-year ended 31st December were, respectively, £3 18s. and £3 14s. 10d., as shown in the printed accounts furnished by the Lough Swilly Company. The surplus of the gross earnings over and above the amount retained by the Lough Swilly Company for working the line, after payment of dividends on guaranteed shares, is £3,530 for the ten months referred to, but certain items in the accounts are in dispute between the Board of Works and the company. Meantime, pending a settlement, the surplus has not yet been apportioned.
    MR. O'DOHERTYasked a further Question about working expenses, but—
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he could add nothing to his Answer.

    Enniskillen Post Office—Missing Postal Orders.
    MR. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a letter was posted in Lisnaskea, county Fermanagh, on 23rd April, 1903, by a Mr. McBrien, of Carratistune, Derrylin, addressed to the Earl of Enniskillen, Post Office, Enniskillen, containing four postal orders of 20s. each, numbered 0/75 848,480, 0/75 848,479, 6/76 259,191, and 6/76 259,192, and that neither letter nor orders reached their destination; and, if so, will he investigate this affair with a view of ascertaining how the orders were finally disposed of, and will he direct that the amount be refunded by the Department to the sender.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Representation was made by Mr. Felix McBrien, of Carratistune, Derrylin, that a letter sent by him on 23rd April, 1903, to the Earl of Enniskillen at the Post Office, Enniskillen, had not been delivered. Search was made, but no trace of any such letter could be found. No postal order for 20s. was issued at the Lisnaskea Post Office on the date in question. The orders quoted were issued there on the 22nd April, and I am satisfied from the inquiries which have been made that they are not the orders which Mr. McBrien states were enclosed in the letter described. In the circumstances there are no grounds on which I should be justified in paying the amount to Mr. McBrien.
    MR. JORDAN: If I furnish the noble Lord with further particulars, with the numbers, and the handwriting of the postmaster, will it influence him to change his mind?
    LORD STANLEY: I shall be most happy to look into the question, but I do not say I will change my mind.

    Attempted Proselytism in the Cork Post Office.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 22nd June the postmaster of Cork

    177
    permitted Commander Salwey of His Majesty's Coastguards, Kinsale, to visit the interior of the Cork Post Office, the postmaster himself and the telegraph superintendent accompanying him in his tour of the office, and that Commander Salwey distributed religious tracts among the staff on duty; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that over 90 per cent, of the said staff are Catholics, he will state how the parties guilty of this conduct shall be dealt with.
    LORD STANLEY: From the inquiry which has been made, I find that while Captain Salwey was being shown the telegraph office at Cork he apparently dropped tracts on the tables and on the floor unnoticed by the postmaster or the acting superintendent who were accompanying him. The tracts were not, it appears, of a controversial character; and though I think Captain Salwey's conduct was indiscreet, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this malpractice is not pursued in future, seeing that it is most offensive to a large number of employees?
    LORD STANLEY: If it had been discovered in time the officials would certainly have stopped it.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the distribution of leaflets of this kind, and as to whether it was not done in the company of the postmaster of Cork and the superintendent?
    LORD STANLEY: I have said that they were present, but they did not see him dropping the leaflets.
    MR. CONDON (Tipperary, E.): They winked the other eye.

    Birthday Honours List.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why, in the official announcement of the list of Birthday honours, has that list been intituled the Prime Minister's List; what is the reason for this new departure in the form of the official announcement, and at whose suggestion
    178
    and on whose responsibility has it been made; and whether there is any, and, if so, what, precedent for the announcement of the list of Birthday honours as the Prime Minister's List.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): There was no official announcement of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the list of honours was headed in one newspaper in the way suggested, but that is not the ordinary way, and certainly it had no authority from me.

    Irish Board of Agriculture—Sir Horace Plunkett's Position.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the office of Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture is a Ministerial office, held at the pleasure of the Crown, whose tenure depends on the existence of the Government of which the holder is a member; whether he is aware that the statute constituting the office provides that the person appointed thereto will not, if a Member of the House of Commons, vacate his seat, and will not be required to submit himself for re-election under the provisions of the Place Acts; whether, seeing that it is the duty of the Vice-President of the Agricultural Board to explain and expound in Parliament the policy of that Board, and to answer Parliamentary criticism of that policy on behalf of the Government, that since 1900 the Vice-President of this Board has been without a seat in either House of Parliament, and that the Vice-President himself stated shortly after the general election of 1900 that his absence from Parliament for any considerable time was not compatible with the retention of his office, he will say if there is any, and, if so, what, precedent for the holding by a Minister of the Crown for a period of nearly four years of office without a seat in Parliament; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in this matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The first Question is whether the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture would go out if the Ministry went out. The Answer is in the affirmative. Then the hon. Gentleman

    179
    asks me whether the seat would be vacated in the ordinary way upon taking office. The answer to that is also in the affirmative. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether there is any precedent for any gentleman who holds Parliamentary office under the Crown not having a seat in this House. Yes, there are many precedents. I am informed that in Mr. Gladstone's and Lord Rosebery's Government of 1892–4 the Attorney-General for Ireland was not in this House, and I have no reason to believe that the life of that Government would have been prolonged if he had been in the House. As regards the quotation from the speech of the Vice-President himself, it is true that he thought, and no doubt thinks, that he could perform his duties better if he were able in this House to deal with the questions that arise in connection with his office. I will be quite frank with the House. When the office was first instituted it was undoubtedly the desire of the Government that the Vice-President should be in this House, and I think it would be more convenient that he should be.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Why do not you give him a seat?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot state too emphatically that in my opinion the special qualifications of Sir Horace Plunkett for the duties which he carries out—duties which, as I am sure every Member of this House will admit, he has undertaken quite apart from ordinary Party politics—and the single-hearted ability which he has thrown into his duties render his case a special one.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether, in view of the Prime Minister's high opinion of the services which Sir Horace Plunkett had rendered, and his opinion that he ought to be in that House, the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to have Sir Horace Plunkett selected as the Conservative candidate for one of the vacant seats.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe there are parts of the country where the Leader of the Party settles who shall represent a constituency. I have no such desire.

    The Licensing Bill.
    MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard not only to the inconvenience of short notice, but also to the fact that on all previous occasions when propositions of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman is to make to-morrow have been made longer notice has been given, he seriously proposes to take the notice standing in his name to-morrow.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I quite seriously propose it. I do not exactly understand what the right hon. Gentleman's objection is. Of course, if there are difficulties in the way of his marshalling his forces in order to deal with the question, I should sympathise with him. But it is certainly not a question in regard to which elaborate considerations have to be worked out, or on which hon. Gentlemen require time to prepare their speeches.
    MR. BRYCE: As I am challenged on the subject I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why we think longer notice is necessary. It is because we look upon this occasion as one of the utmost gravity and because many Members of the House who have business engagements made long ago will find it very difficult to be present tomorrow. Among them is the Leader of the Opposition, who is absent at this moment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering that the interests of the country and of this House must necessarily be involved in this matter, whether it would not be in accordance with his sense of due respect to the House of Commons to give longer notice.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a mistake. I have not refreshed my memory with the degree of notice given with regard to the Home Rule Bill, the Evicted Tenants Bill, the Education Bill, or the other Bills to which this process has been applied; but I certainly do not see why the interval which I have given between yesterday and to-morrow is not sufficient to enable hon. Members to make up their minds on the subject.
    MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman did not give notice yesterday. The

    181
    notice only came to the knowledge of Members of the House this morning when the Papers were delivered. With regard to the Education Bill, the right hon. Gentleman gave notice at the end of a Friday sitting and did not take the Motion until the following Tuesday.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman also refresh my memory with regard to the Evicted Tenants Bill?
    MR. BRYCE: My recollection is that considerable notice was given.

  NEW BILLS.
    VALUATION (No. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Law to enable the council of every county and county borough to be the sole Valuation Authority of its county or borough for all rateable purposes, and for Income-Tax and Inhabited House Duty," presented by Mr. John Hutton; supported by Sir John Dorington and Colonel Stopford Sackville; to be read a second time upon Monday, 18th July, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]
    DRUNKENNESS (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Drunkenness in Ireland, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Hugh Law; supported by Sir James Haslett, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Captain Donelan; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]
    SUPPLY [14TH APRIL] [15TH ALLOTTED DAY].
    Resolution reported.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,839,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
Resolution read a second time.
SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to reduce the sum by £10,000 in respect of artillery. The re-armament of the artillery with quick-firing guns was a matter which had been already discussed this session. A very large sum of money would be required for the re-armament, of which none was asked for in the present year, and one complaint was that the whole of the cost of the present year was being thrown on the Indian Estimates. It appeared that the Government were now retubing the existing guns and the amount by which he asked that the Vote should be reduced was the minimum cost of the process. The Vote in the Estimates for guns and carriages this year showed a reduction of £500,000 and that for field artillery had also been considerably reduced. This country was to pay a certain proportion of the cost of re-armament next year, but it appeared that the heaviest portion of the cost was to be thrown on the Estimates two years hence. Looking to the fact that this re-armament had been expected for many years, that it had been most actively demanded by the House since 1899, that it had been far too long postponed, and that credit had been taken by the Prime Minister for a rearmament which never, as a fact, took place, it did seem monstrous that the main charge for the re-armament of the artillery should be thrown on the Army Estimates two years hence. It was a most improper proceeding. He noted also that the question of supplying field guns to the Volunteer and Militia artillery was untouched. It had been constantly pointed out to the House that we were behind other Powers in the matter of re-armament of the artillery with quick-firing guns. In the present war between Russia and Japan quick-firing guns had played a most important part, and it had been clearly demonstrated that any army which took the field with guns such as we now had would be lost. Although they were told the manufacturers were to have carte blanche, yet the guns would not be ready for two years. Both Japan and Russia, however, had turned them out with much greater speed, and it seemed to him incredible that this country could not do as well. The sum he moved was intended to cover a large proportion

183
of the cost of the retubing which was going on in this country, which was an attempt to make fit for service guns which were altogether superannuated—guns which no other Power in the world would put into the field.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the sum of '£2,839,000,' and to insert the sum of '£2,829,000.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
Question proposed, "That'£2,839,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)said he was quite unable to understand the grave nature of the right hon. Gentleman's charge in regard to the expenditure on new guns. It was perfectly true that it was decided by him, in consultation with his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, that the expenditure on the new guns this year should, in the main, fall upon India. What was there to criticise in that arrangement? They could only manufacture during the first year a certain number of guns, and where were those guns more likely to be wanted than in India? He had ascertained the output capacity of the firms engaged in the manufacture of guns, and had also taken into account the amount of money available for the purchase of the guns in the current year. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the British Army was in some way worse off because the first guns were to go to India.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his point that day was that they had put off the main supply until two years hence.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid they had now sealed the patterns of the horse and field guns, and they had ascertained the number which could be manufactured during the current year; that would amount to twenty-one horse and field batteries. A very considerable amount of work, to the extent of over £100,000, which would contribute towards the completion of the guns in the next year to be appropriated to the Army at home, would also be done. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they had put off the bulk of the expenditure
184
on these guns till 1907. The right hon. Gentleman had suggested that in other countries the guns were manufactured with greater speed. He had taken great pains to ascertain what had been the exact process of re-armament in every other country which had re-armed, and he did not find that, in proportion to the Army they had to supply, we were acting in any way differently from any other country. They were proposing, and he hoped they would be able, to spend £1,300,000 on these guns during next year. They believed that the rate of manufacture would enable them to turn out a battery a week. He did not regard that as a low rate of manufacture, though he believed that, if they abandoned all their other work, and concentrated entirely on the manufacture of guns, it would be possible to slightly accelerate the out-put. But the question of how they should apportion their work was one which the responsible Department must be allowed to deal with. If they manufactured at the rate of a battery a week during next year, he thought they would be doing a great deal towards accomplishing the end they had in view. Even in the current year the manufacture of the component parts of the guns would be proceeded with. He did not know if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of what an elaborate process preceded the actual manufacture of guns. After the sealed pattern had been received, patterns had to be made not only for the Royal Gun Factories but also for private manufacturers. He was anxious that the guns manufactured this year should proceed as fast as they could, but he did not for a moment anticipate that they would to any extent be in advance of the estimate they had formed. They had made a very strenuous effort to do their duty in this matter. They were arranging for the re-armament of the whole of the horse and field artillery of this country, and the limit of time was far shorter than had ever been the case for such a purpose in the history of the country. He could conceive that a national emergency might arise which would make it desirable that we should be armed more quickly, and perhaps in that event progress might be accelerated. If the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean could get his

185
Party, who had been greatly in favour of a reduction of our military expenditure, to allow him to expend during the coming year more than £1,300,000, he should certainly thank him for the assistance he had given and would expend the money. He would remind hon. Members how this money had been found in other countries; in France, he believed, the money for re-arming the artillery was found almost exclusively from the sale of the fortifications of Paris. Well, London was not a fortified city and we had not got the happy opportunity of selling our fortifications and turning them into guns; the money in our case had to come solidly out of the Army Estimates. They were doing all that could reasonably be undertaken in the present year, and in future years they were contemplating the performance of as much as the House would allow.
With regard to another matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the armament of the Volunteer field artillery batteries with the new gun, there was, of course, a great divergence of opinion as to the desirability of furnishing the Auxiliary Forces with field guns. The right hon. Gentleman and he were rather in agreement on this matter, that we should utilise a portion of our Auxiliary Forces in the manipulation of the field gun. But he was bound to say that that was not the prevailing military opinion, and he thought it was not altogether unreasonable, as they had to curtail their expenditure as much as they could, not to expand too rapidly in the direction of adding to the Militia and Volunteer artillery. Already a partial experiment, however, had been made. A Volunteer heavy battery had been given the opportunity of using the field gun, and it was a perfectly fair question to ask whether they could develop this dedication of field guns to the Auxiliary Forces. But he would remind the House, at the same time, that we were in a much better position with regard to the artillery than we had ever been in before. We had actually doubled in the last few years the number of horse and field batteries, and if it should become necessary to diminish, rather than to increase, the number of the available infantry in this country, we
186
should come much nearer to the European computation of the proportion between the field guns and the infantry which the right hon. Gentleman opposite desired we should attain. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to accept from him the view that this was a closed question; he did not think it was; he thought they would yet have to consider the question of how far they should entrust the field gun to the Auxiliary Forces.
SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of turning out the new guns this year. He would like to ask him whether, when speaking of this year, he meant the financial year.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the financial year. They hoped in the current financial year to manufacture twenty-one batteries, and to prepare for the completion of a number of additional batteries in the next year.
SIR JOHN COLOMB: Can you give an approximate date when you will be in a position to begin turning them out?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he supposed it would be towards the end of this year, when the manufacturing firms and the Ordnance Factories would be in possession of the necessary plant and machinery. Obviously the manufacturers would not be in full swing until they had been carrying on the business for some time.
SIR JOHN COLOMBfeared there was a lack of perspective in what was proposed He conceived it was the duty of the House to grant the Government all the money necessary, whatever the amount, to enable it to proceed with all reasonable expedition with the re-armament of the artillery, and he hoped that nothing would induce the Government to cut down a single shilling of the expenditure that was necessary for the purpose. So far as the Volunteer and Militia artillery was concerned he was not in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. He did not believe in supplying the Auxiliary Forces with field guns if they were only liable to serve in the United Kingdom.
SIR HOWAED VINCENTjoined with the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth in insisting on the importance of proceeding rapidly with the re-armament of the artillery. He said the lesson, as far as they could gather it, of the war between Russia and Japan was that the superiority of the Japanese artillery had been the determining factor in every engagement. It would be false economy not to provide the very best weapon that could be got, and neglect of that duty meant serious danger to the country. It might be expensive, for guns soon got out of date, but still we were bound to supply our forces in the field with the best available armaments. As to the arming of the Volunteers with artillery, it was scandalous that that question should have been put off time after time. He wanted to point out the importance of supplying field guns to the Volunteer artillery.
COLONEL LEGGEsaid that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had made a charge against the War Office in connection with the delay in arming the artillery with new quick-firing guns. The Memorandum presented to the House at the commencement of the session by the Secretary of State for War set forth that the manufacture of the quick-firing guns and equipment was about to commence. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War now told the House that the manufacture of these guns had commenced and would be completed in three years time. That was exactly the time mentioned by his right hon. friend which it took the Japanese Government to reconstruct their artillery armaments; and if, at the end of three years, our artillery was as good and as well served as that of the Japanese, he did not think we would have much cause to complain. He wished to draw attention to the question of the lance—
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he had only spoken specifically in respect of Item B.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that it would be more convenient if the hon. and gallant Member were to make his observations
188
on the main question rather than on this particular Amendment.
MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he sympathised greatly with the object of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean in proposing this reduction; because, on the face of it, he did not see why the manufacture of the whole of the artillery should not have been taken in hand at once, at any cost. They were, of course, cribbed, cabined, and confined in this matter by financial necessities, because they, too, had to draw their finances from a limited number of sources of taxation. He did not wish to go further into the question; but he wanted to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office exactly how the matter stood in regard to the orders for these guns. He thought that the hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question put some time ago, stated that the orders for guns for the Indian Army would be given out as quickly as possible, and that they would be allocated in the proportion of two-thirds to the trade, and one-third to the Government arsenals. Had the orders been given out in these proportions? The private firms had two claims on the Government; first, because they had been specifically asked in former tines to increase their means of production. But these means of production could not be made available in times of stress unless they were employed in times of peace. A distinct and plain pledge was given in that regard by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, by the Secretary for India, and confirmed by the now Secretary of State for War. It had recently been the fashion to talk of the distress caused by the dismissal of Government servants at the Government arsenals, but there were other places in the kingdom, such as Sheffield, where there had been no less distress on account of the lack of Government orders.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield)said that the right hon. Member had asked for some specific information as to the manufacture of quick-firing guns. He said that the manufacture of the whole of

189
these guns should be taken in hand at once without reference to cost. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway said that the right policy was for the Government to come to Parliament and ask for any money needful to provide the guns necessary for the service of the Army with all reasonable expedition.
MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that what he had stated was that that was an ideal policy.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he quite agreed, everybody agreed, and he hoped the House of Commons would agree, that whatever it might be necessary for the War Office to ask the House for this purpose should be given. We should see, however, how that would be next year. He did not quite understand the object of the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. The right hon. Baronet talked about throwing the expenditure on the year after next.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he based himself on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the Estimates, and on the answer to a Question that day when he asked the right hon. Gentlemen to specify what was the amount of the charge in the next financial year and in the year after that, because the armament was announced to be completed by the 31st March, 1907.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that during the present year, 1904–5, no batteries were to be made for this country. The batteries to be made this year were to be made for India. Next year the batteries were to be made for home, and the year after that, 1906–7, under present arrangements the whole programme would be completed.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that what he had asserted was that the bulk of the money would be spent in the year after next.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the fact was that practically one-half of it would be spent next year, and there
190
was an extra £550,000 which would be spent the year after next. He thought it was hardly fair, in respect of a total expenditure of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, to say that the bulk of the expenditure had been put on the year after next.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the bulk of the expenditure in the year after next would fall on this country.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that as a matter of fact next year the expenditure would be £1,300,000, and beyond that there would be an extra sum of £550,000 although the guns would not have been completed and the year after there would also be an expenditure of £1,300,000. That was the programme at the present time, and he did not think it was quite accurate to say that the bulk of the money would be spent in the year after next or that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to postpone asking for what money was necessary to arm the artillery. His hon. friend the Member for Bright-side had raised a very interesting and difficult question, which, however, he thought it would be rather inconvenient to discuss at the present moment. What he could say was that the allocation of the orders for guns would be made according to accepted principles, which were, as he had said, that the trade reserves should be taken advantage of as well as the reserves of the Government factories. But he thought that his hon. friend rather overstated the case when he said that the private firms had a claim on the Government. It was true that the Government had encouraged these firms to lay out very large sums of money in the provision of plant and machinery as a reserve power of supply of armaments. The Government had regarded the existence of that plant and machinery as a reserve power of supply and that, unless that power of supply were there, it would be absolutely necessary for the Government to provide that reserve power of supply. In other words, the reserve at present existing in the plant and machinery at Woolwich would have to be very much larger.
MR. J. F. HOPEasked if any orders had yet been given out to private firms.
MB. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that no orders had yet been given.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes, 151. (Division List No. 185.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fardell, Sir T. George

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Montagu, G. Huntingdon)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Fisher, William Hayes

Morpeth, Viscount

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fison, Frederick William

Morrell, George Herbert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Morrison, James Archibald

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Forster, Henry William

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.

Mount, William Arthur

Baird, John George Alexander

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Baldwin, Alfred

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W. (Leeds

Graham, Henry Robert

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gunter, Sir Robert

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hain, Edward

Percy, Earl

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pierpoint, Robert

Bignold, Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Bigwood, James

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Plummer, Walter R.

Bond, Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Helder, Augustus

Pryce-Jones, 'Lt.-Col. Edward

Bowles, T. Gibson( King's Lynn

Hogg, Lindsay

Pym, C. Guy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rankin, Sir James

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Horner, Frederick William

Rateliff, R. F.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hoult, Joseph

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Renwick, George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Richards, Henry Charles

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hunt, Rowland

Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Robinson, Brooke

Chapman, Edward

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kimber, Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Coddington, Sir William

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Colomb, Rt. Hon Sir John C. R.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cust, Henry John C.

Lowe, Francis William

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Davenport, William Bromley

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Denny, Colonel

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Dickson, Charles Scott

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Maconochie, A. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Majendie, James A. H.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Manners, Lord Cecil

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Duke, Henry Edward

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Stroyan, John

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Milner, Rt. Hon Sir Frederick G.

Tollemache, Henry James

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Tuff, Charles

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wills, Sir Frederick

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Wodehouse, Lt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Mr.Ailwyn Fellowes.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Webb, Colonel William George

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hn Sir W. (Monm'th

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Malley, William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Parrott, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Helme, Norval Watson

Paulton, James Mellor

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philipps, John Wynford

Blake, Edward

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Boland, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Brigg, John

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Price, Robert John

Broadhurst, Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Russell

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Reddy, M.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rigg, Richard

Burke, E. Haviland

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roche, John

Cameron, Robert

Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kilbride, Denis

Runciman, Walter

Causton, Richard Knight

Labouchere, Henry

Russell, T. W.

Cawley, Frederick

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Schwann, Charles E.

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Leng, Sir John

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Islcof Wight

Crean, Eugene

Lewis, John Herbert

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Crombie, John William

Lough, Thomas

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, W.

Sheehy, David

Dalziel, James Henry

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Soares, Ernest J.

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny N.)

M'Fadden, Edward

Sullivan, Donal

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

M'Hugh, Patrick

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Dobbie, Joseph

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Doogan, P. C.

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Toulmin, George

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Mooney, John J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, J. Hastings

Moss, Samuel

Wallace, Robert

Dunn, Sir William

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ellice, Capt. E. C. (S. Andrw's Bghs

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Emmott, Alfred

Norman, Henry

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, N.)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, James, F. X. (Cork)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf d

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Samuel

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Doherty, William

Warner and Capt. Norton.

Grant, Corrie

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Dowd, John

Original Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL LEGGEsaid he would again urge on the Secretary of State for War not to lose sight of the question of lances and pistols for the cavalry. They were abolished without due consideration; and he hoped the question
194
would be reconsidered. All European cavalry had retained the lance. It was stated in the Press that the Russian Lancers had recently overwhelmed the Japanese cavalry; and that was about the only success which the Russians had

195
achieved during the present war. He hoped his right hon. friend would give the matter his best consideration.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to ask a question as to the financial aspect of the manner in which the War Office conducted its business. At present, the infantry and cavalry were being re-armed with new rifles; and he should like to know the ratio, not only in money but also in rifles, between the Government factories and private contractors. It had been stated that rifles could be produced at the Government arsenals at about £3 a piece, whereas private firms charged £4. It had been suggested that interest on buildings and capital and depreciation should be taken into consideration. The one item not allowed for was the cost of the land on which the factory stood, but as that would not have been very expensive at the time the factory was built a penny per rifle would probably more than cover it, so that that would not account for the difference. It was said to be necessary that private factories should be kept going in order that in time of war there should be room for expansion in the supply. But that argument cut both ways. The larger the Small Arms Factory, the easier it would be to increase it. The Government factory would be able much more easily than a private firm to increase its machinery. It would be all very well to keep outside firms going if they produced the rifles at anything like the cost in the Government factories; but the paying of 25 per cent, more should be deferred until the emergency arose, especially as a great deal of distress at present existed in consequence of the shortage of work at the Small Arms Factory. He regarded it as a monstrous piece of War Office mismanagement that this waste of money should go on. Every possible economy in War Office administration ought to be effected, but if millions of money were to be wasted in this fashion there would be no hope of securing an efficient Army at a smaller cost. The efficiency of the Army depended upon the artillery more than anything else, but our guns fired only one shot to the foreigner's three, so that in the event of war we should be at
196
a terrible disadvantage in the one arm upon which every victory in the present struggle in the East had depended.
SIR JOHN COLOMBdesired to repeat his protest against the placing on the Army Estimates of the charge for submarine mines and Brennan torpedoes. The capital expenditure on the Brennan torpedo, which was introduced ten or twelve years ago, had been nearly half a million of money; it had cost something like £32,000 a year, and the charge under this particular item was £12,500. For submarine mines a sum of £61,000 was asked for. He protested altogether against these methods of defence being charged on the Army Estimates. Looking at the question broadly, ought we not to learn a lesson from the present position of Port Arthur with regard to submarine mines? He did not want to run the risk of having mines loose at the mouth of the Thames. He objected to the policy altogether. The maritime defence of this country would have to be active; it could not be passive, nor could it be handed over to the Army. He did not ask the Secretary of State to make any statement on the subject, he simply desired to repeat the protest he had often made. A big principle was involved, and in the new Army scheme, which he hoped would be carefully considered before it was produced, attention would have to be paid to the question of how far it was right to devote money voted for Army purposes to these aquatic arrangements, which he believed to be altogether bad in principle and absolutely m the wrong hands.
CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)said the present Secretary of State for War was exonerated to some extent from the blame for the gross mismanagement which had taken place in connection with the supplying of the Army with a suitable rifle. On March 7th it was stated that a new rifle had been in course of manufacture for some time; therefore the Government had had ample time to deal with the question in a manner other than that they had adopted. The fact that £700,000 was to fall on the finances of India went to show that much of the expenditure which ought really to be

197
borne upon the Votes this year was being cast forward to subsequent years. The rifle with which we fought the South African War, the old Lee-Enfield, was defective in sighting. That defect was well known to the manufacturers, but the rifles went through the ordinary inspection, and it was nobody's duty to call the attention of the Government to the fact that we had rifles with defective sights. The effect of that was that thousands of men sacrificed their lives in South Africa because they had not a weapon that would shoot, and the widows of these men were now endeavouring to keep their children out of the workhouse. He contended that if there had been effective inspection those lives would not have been sacrificed. The guilt of this lay at the door of the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. But what were the Government doing now? The cost of the Lee-Enfield was about 52s., yet the Government were throwing away the country's money by tinkering up these rifles and issuing them to the troops as converted weapons. They required in the first place new barrels and new sights, a new charger to simplify the drop of the cartridge into the magazine, and the extension of the magazine to such an extent as to hold ten cartridges. Then the body required to be altered and the stock; and although these stocks had been knocked about in the South African War, and in some cases had had pieces of wood let in, these weapons were to be issued as converted to the troops. The original cost was only 52s. and this, as he understood, was a matter of economy. What he wanted to know was how much this conversion was going to cost, because his contention was that these rifles were not worth converting.
If the Government were guilty of wasting public money with regard to the conversion of these old rifles, they were much more so in connection with the new rifle, because what took place with regard to the new rifle was that, although they had been in the course of construction for some time, at the present moment there were not more than 15,000 or 16,000 in existence. Owing to its terrible defects it was most unreliable. One of the great defects of
198
he new rifle was its terrible recoil, which was so great that he had seen large numbers of men afraid to shoot with it To obviate the recoil the Government had had the barrels enlarged at the muzzle with the result that no shooting power could be got out of it. The shooting had become irregular. If India was to be supplied with seventy-one thousand stands of arms, there ought to be 60,000 of these rifles now ready, but owing to the initial mistakes and the consequent experiments there were only 15,000 or 16,000. The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, anxious to give a fair share of, this work to private firms, but he ventured to assert that if those firms followed the specifications given to them the result would be the production of a rifle which would not shoot. The result of all the investigations that had taken place was that they had come back to the old parallel barrel with progression in the rifling only. If he were asked how this should be obviated and how the viewing should be done, his answer would be that the manufacturers should be made responsible for the barrel and that the viewing should be done by their foremen who were competent for the work. But what was the position with regard to the Small Arms Factories at Enfield? There they had some 2,500 men who had been experimenting for more than a year and no rifles had been issued, and if the House took into consideration the high pay these men got, the cost of these rifles came out not at £4 but at £15 or £16 each.
Then, with regard to the machine guns, he would like to know how many Maxims, how many Nordenfeldts, and how many Gardiner guns we had, and what each gun cost the country when obtained from the manufacturers as against what they cost when manufactured in our Small Arms Factories. He would also like to know what orders had been given for these various guns and to whom they had been given, because his contention was that the country's money had been wasted, first by experimental processes, and secondly by an unfair proportion of orders being given to private firms. At the present time the Small Arms Factory at Enfield was doing one-third of the work it usually did, and he contended the orders should not be given out until

199
the Government factories were working at higher pressure. What had occurred? During the war the Enfield factory was only working at an average of ten hours a day whilst private firms were working three eight-hour shifts. It was clear, therefore, that at that time advantage was not taken of the Government arsenals. In some departments of the Enfield factory there was from 50 to 70 per cent, of the plant lying idle whilst large orders were going to Birmingham and other places; not that he had any objection to orders going anywhere, but he had a special interest in seeing that the Government factories did their fair share of work. He disclaimed any intention to cast any slur on the heads of the factory at Enfield, who always did their best, but it was not, in his opinion, possible for any official to carry out the work satisfactorily if he were compelled to keep an experienced staff at a high price which he could not utilise. In this year, when we were not at war, they were turning out at Enfield only half the work which they turned out in the years when the Lee-Enfield was being manufactured. They had heard recently a great deal about the importance of artillery fire. What won battles was not artillery but rifle fire, and this was of the greatest importance in the class of country in which the British Army was usually called upon to operate. Notwithstanding this they found the Government shirking their duty by not turning out the maximum number of rifles at Enfield and elsewhere, and they were not arming our force with the best weapon that could be produced.
MR. HUNTsaid that some people held that it did not matter much whether the rifle was very accurate or not, but that was not his opinion. He thought if the new rifle did not shoot accurately it would be a great pity to have a large number made before the rifle had been thoroughly tested. The great idea of the War Office nowadays of teaching recruits to shoot appeared to be to keep them snapping at their inspector's eye. Probably the recruits got bored by this process. It struck him that if they wanted to teach men to shoot they should begin early and shoot with miniature rifles,
200
if not, even an air-gun was better than the snapping business. He hoped that before this question was finally settled the rifle would be thoroughly tested by the Auxiliary as well as the Regular Forces, because, if, as reported, the rifle kicked considerably, it would be a fatal objection to its use, especially by the Auxiliary Forces. They had now brought the sights nearer together and consequently shooting had been rendered more difficult. He did not think that there was the slightest advantage in having the rifle shortened for infantry and mounted infantry, and in his opinion a long rifle was much easier to shoot with than a short one.
MAJOR SEELYurged the Secretary for War to pause before proceeding with the manufacture of the new rifle. It was getting more and more difficult in this country to obtain suitable practice with the rifle owing to the crowded nature of these islands, and they had been obliged to shoot with reduced charges both in the Regular Army, the Auxiliaries, and in the rifle clubs as a means of getting out of the difficulty. All this shooting was of great and substantial value so long as the difference between firing with reduced ammunition and a full charge was very slight. If they had a new rifle in which the recoil was greater the value of this kind of shooting practice would be enormously reduced. He took a deep interest in rifle clubs and he was loth to see a weapon adopted which would render the practice now being carried out in his part of the country of less value than it was at the present time, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be advisable to see that the new rifle should have as little recoil as possible. It might be that the new model would give a less recoil, and if he could be assured on that point it would be a great relief not only to himself but also to all those who took an interest in amateur rifle shooting.
His principal reason for rising was to call attention to the extraordinary position in which the nation stood in regard to the re-arming of the artillery. It was perfectly true that battles were won to a great extent by the rifle, but it was no less true that they were also won to a

201
great extent by artillery; and although it was a matter of controversy as to whether the new rifle or the old one was the best, there was no doubt the artillery of the British Army was the worst used by any civilised nation of any importance in the world. The position was so extraordinary that he ventured to ask the House to consider it. If they were asked to name the greatest military curiosity the reply would be that the richest nation in the world had the worst artillery. The difference between the artillery this country possessed and that possessed by the great countries with whom they might possibly be at war was not a difference of degree but of kind. There was a great difference in the velocity of the shot, in the first place; in the second place there was a difference in the fact that the ammunition was fixed in one piece; and thirdly, there was the difference that recoil in the new gun was worked by a mechanical arrangement on the carriage. The consequence was that whereas the old gun with which our Army was armed—with the solitary exception of a few batteries—could only fire from one to two shots per minute, the gun which they might have had and which had been adopted by other countries fired between twelve and eighteen shots per minute. The Financial Secretary knew from his own experience in the field of war how fatal it was to be possessed of a gun of which a battery was of less value than one gun possessed by the enemy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them a more satisfactory assurance upon this subject than he had given up to the present as to what efforts were being made to remedy this extraordinary state of affaire. On the 7th of March they were assured that the gun had been chosen, that it had been tested, and that it had shown results of a startling nature. All the artillery experts and others who saw the trials, they were informed, were wholly and entirely convinced that the danger they ran in not adopting this quick-firing gun was very great. On the 7th March they were told that the manufacture of this gun would begin within a month of that date. Some three and a half months had since elapsed, and not only had the manufacture of this gun not commenced but no orders for it had been given. No doubt the right
202
hon. Gentleman was determined that they must have a good gun, but they had been stopped by considerations of economy so misplaced as to be absolutely deplorable. He was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman could say that the matter would receive immediate attention, and would ask the Opposition to permit a sum to be voted to re-arm the Army in this country and in India with a quick-firing gun, the Government would receive the unanimous consent of the House and the country. The men in the artillery felt the inferiority in which this wealthy country was placed in this respect. In South Africa our Army was in the strange position of being, not only out-ranged but outnumbered owing to the enemy possessing quick-firing guns. They were told the other day that the Gatling guns out-ranged our own. They were told also tha the guns used by the Boers in South Africa, and those used by the Chinese out-ranged our own. He submitted that the country and the Army did not wish to be any longer trifled with in this matter. They were assured that the re-armament of the Army would be commenced when the gun was chosen. The gun was chosen ten months ago and no order had yet been given. The gun was tried, and the late Commander-in-Chief decided that no substantial improvement could be made.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he saw this gun only a few weeks ago. It had only then been decided which of the competing guns should be adopted. The delay was due to the further investigation of the merits of the weapons by the committee who had been dealing with it.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he knew that no blame attached to the right hon. Gentleman, but the fact was that whereas this gun was decided upon, in substance, ten months ago, constant delay, had occurred in regard to the matter of breech arrangements. The matter had been delayed and delayed, and he challenged denial when he said that the real reason for this had been that £3,250,000 was an inconvenient sum to spend. He knew that was not the view o the Secretary of State for War. It had been the view in the past, and he thought both sides of the House were with him when he asked

203
that an absolute assurance should be given that this vital matter would be no longer delayed.
SIR A. HAYTERsaid he wished to ask the Financial Secretary one or two Questions. On page 61 of the Estimates, Vote 9, under heading "G. Equipment Stores,"harness and saddlery for 1904–5 showed a decrease of £37,000, accoutrements a decrease of £90,000, and transport vehicles a decrease of £75,000, as compared with the amounts in the preceding year. Was there such a surplus of these articles at the close of the war as to warrant these reductions, or was it the intention to permanently diminish the quantities kept in store? The Public Accounts Committee had before them evidence that there was a great lack of saddles during the latter part of the war. The saddles sent out for the Yeomanry were described as unfit for any man to sit on, and others were bought up on the veldt almost, or anywhere in South Africa. The saddles which were sold had fetched almost ridiculous prices. He assumed from the amount of the appropriation-in-aid, which was very little different from that of last year, that the sales of stores in South Africa were very nearly concluded. That made him all the more anxious to know what was the cause of the diminutions in the amounts taken this year for the stores to which he had referred.
COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said he was astonished that the Secretary of State for War had denied that the new rifle had more recoil than the old one. It was the "kick" that the men felt, and many a man would not shoot, if he could possibly avoid doing so, on account of the "kick" It seemed to him to be a physical impossibility not to increase the recoil of the rifle if, with a lighter barrel, the same class of powder were used. He wished to have an explanation of that. The new rifle might even be very much worse in some respects than the old one. His experience had been that weapons were very nearly always enhanced in value as the length of the barrel was increased. There was greater distance between the sights of the weapon, and, therefore, it was easier to aim. On the other hand, when the length of the
204
barrel was decreased that advantage was correspondingly lessened. The figures which had lately been published on the subject were against the theory of the Secretary of State for War that the "kick" was not greater. He believed that what had been done was to put six or eight years modern improvements into the new rifle, but they might make away with these improvements by taking five inches off the length of the rifle. The latest model of any rifle ought to be the best, but that did not always happen, because sometimes people were foolish. In this case it was possible that the shortening of the rifle might do away with the good effects of the improvements. Lord Roberts was entitled to his opinion, but for his own part he would sooner have the opinion of people who had experimented with the weapon than the opinion of the greatest general, even that of Napoleon or Wellington, as to the class of arms best suited for the service. He had the greatest distrust of the shortening of the rifle. It seemed to him a very extraordinary thing if the War Department was without the best type of quick-firing artillery. It was, however, a very hard thing to get. He differed from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, who said that quick-firing depended partly on loading and partly on the recoil. The loading had very little to do with it. Any gun could be loaded quickly. It was entirely a question of checking the recoil. It was no use spending all this money if they were not to get a really good rifle. He thought that 5,000 of the new rifles should be distributed not only in the Army, but among the Militia and Volunteers, so that the weapon could be thoroughly tested by impartial men.
COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid that as to the length of the barrel, when he was in the Rifle Brigade they were always told that the rifle with a long barrel was the best for aiming at long distances. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would not sacrifice efficiency in the new weapon in order to get a rifle which was convenient to be carried on horseback by cavalry and mounted infantry.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid, in regard to the Question put by the right

205
hon. Member for Walsall, that there was no intention permanently to reduce the equipment stores. Hon. Gentlemen had drawn attention to the new guns and the new rifles. He was not qualified to speak of the new guns, but he thought that everybody admitted that there was a deficiency in the quick-firing guns.
MAJOR SEELY: The only deficiency in the new guns is that they are not there.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that with reference to the new rifle, it must at once be admitted that the shortening of the barrel would probably increase the recoil. But he did not think that ought to cover the whole question, because it was equally obvious that there were compensating advantages, such as the lightness and handiness of the rifle. Experiments had been made in shooting, and in another place the figures had been given. At 500 yards the long rifle—i.e.,the old rifle, beat the short rifle by 05 per foot; at 600 yards the short rifle beat the long by 09 per foot; at 1,000 yards the long rifle beat the short by 17 per foot; at 1,500 yards the short rifle beat the long by 68 per foot; and at 1,700 yards the short rifle beat the long by 09 per foot. The firing was from the shoulder. He would put it no higher than this, that the shooting of the rifles appeared to be equal, and when to that was added the compensating advantages of the short rifle, he thought there was no doubt that the new rifle would be a very great improvement. The cost of the conversion of the old rifle was £2 5s. the cost of the new rifle being £3 10s. and the converted rifle was not inferior to the new rifle.
A question of principle had been raised in regard to the employment of the trade for the manufacture of rifles. It seemed that that was alleged sometimes as a labour, and sometimes as an economical, grievance. It was not a labour grievance at all, however, for it did not make the slightest difference to the body of British working men whether the wages paid for work done were paid in Enfield, Sheffield, Newcastle, or elsewhere. It made a difference, of course, to the workmen at Woolwich or Enfield; that, however, was not a labour grievance but a local grievance. Trouble had be-
206
fallen that particular branch of labour with the reduction of employment that came at the end of the great inflation which prevailed during the South African War. It was not only at Enfield that there had been distress. He was told that at the present time there were 10,000 men fewer employed upon Government work in private firms than during the war. It was fair that these facts should be considered, when it was suggested that an injustice had been done to the locality at Enfield or at Woolwich, because the Government bad pursued a policy not of its own creation, but approved by its predecessors for many years past. It was not the case that in regard to rifles an undue proportion of the work had been given to private firms; on the contrary, the general principle had been departed from in favour of the factories. He was convinced that it was right and proper as a general principle that the Government should make use of private establishments which had spent large sums in laying down plant and machinery in reserve for emergencies and crises whenever they might arise. If the Government plant was to be kept fully employed by taking away from the trade their proportion of the work, then private firms would certainly reduce their plant to the level of their own requirements. But there must be a reserve, and in that case the Government would be forced to have an enormously increased reserve at Enfield and at Woolwich. He was not in a position to say exactly what proportion of rifles were given to private firms and what proportion were made in Government factories, but he thought it was about half and half. He had figure which showed that there had been a great reduction in the number of men engaged on Government work by private firms. One firm which employed 4,602 men on Government work during the war now only employed 3,209; another firm which had been employing 1,400 men now only employed 700; in a third there was a decrease from 2,700 men to 400 men. He had expressly indicated that this question could not be confined to rifles only. It was a question of policy and principle. Altogether, he was informed that 10,000 fewer men were now engaged in Government work than were employed during the war. It was fair

207
that the fact should be considered when hon. Members suggested that an injustice was being done to certain localities because the Government had pursued a policy which had been approved by their predecessors.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he accepted the policy as a whole; but, in his opinion, an undue proportion of rifle work had been given to private contractors.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was glad to know that the hon. Gentleman accepted the policy. The reduction of the men employed by private firms in Government work showed that the general principle had not been departed from. He was laying down a general principle, which he was convinced was sound, namely, that it was right and proper that the Government should make use of private contractors who had laid out very large sums in providing plant and machinery in order that they might be a reserve in periods of crises. It was suggested that it was an injustice to the localities that the Government should keep plant and machinery lying idle, while they gave orders to private firms. Let him press that contention to its logical conclusion. If the Government factories were to be fully employed, the private firms would reduce their machinery, and the Government would be, as a consequence, obliged to put in at Enfield and Woolwich an enormous reserve of plant and machinery and that would be a perpetuation of the evil.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked what was the ratio of rifle work in money and rifles as between Government factories and private firms.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he could not state that at the moment; but he thought he was right in saying that it was half and half.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if that was money or rifles.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid it was the value of the production.
COLONEL BOWLESsaid that that was a very important
208
question, because the rifle produced in the Government factories cost £3 10s. 6d., whereas the rifle produced by private firms cost £4 10s., which meant some 30 per cent. more.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he did not mean money in that sense at all. He thought the hon. Member was calling attention to the conversion of the old rifles, not to new rifles.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if the conditions as to the time allowed were the same.
MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the contract for the rifles would terminate at the end of 1905.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the hon. Gentleman had not answered the question put by his hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Wight in regard to the delay in providing the guns.
COLONEL BOWLESsaid that the Financial Secretary to the War Office suggested that the Government did not include rent or interest on money in the price of the rifle manufactured by the Government. It was not quite fair to put it in that way, because in all those accounts a certain amount had been allowed for all such charges. In considering this matter, the House, in order to be perfectly fair as between the Government factories and private firms, should understand what the cost of the rifles really was. He thought that the price now given to the trade was excessive. He agreed that a large proportion of the work should be given to the trade, as it both stimulated the Government factories and the trade; but it was right that the country should have some guidance as to the price that was being paid; and he hoped that the Government factories would be given an opportunity of producing their figures as well as private firms.
SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that, as an old musketry instructor, he did not think that there was much fault to be found with the new rifle. It was better balanced, was easier to handle, and had a lower trajectory.

209
He did not understand the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean to the retubing of the old guns. That was really a matter of economy. He should like to refer to the weight of the cavalry saddles, bridles, and swords. He could not conceive any worse or more useless weapon than the cavalry sword. It was badly balanced; it was heavy where it should be light, and light where it should be heavy. He would prefer to fight a man with a broomstick rather than with such a weapon. He could not understand why the saddles and bridles were made so enormously and ridiculously heavy. They were, it was true, better than they used to be; but that was not saying much. The bridles had pounds of steel which were quite unnecessary; and that also applied to the saddles. It was said that the heavier they were the longer they would last. That was perfectly true; but if it were carried to its logical conclusion, they might be made heavier and heavier until they would last forever, but then an elephant would be required to carry them. That was really no argument at all. Although the weight had been considerably reduced, yet, at present, a dragoon rode at eighteen stone, and a hussar, who was supposed to be a light cavalry man, at fourteen stone. There was an immense amount of hide-bound red tape which prevented the weight being reduced. The obvious thing was that the kit and the cooking tins should not be carried on the horse. They should be carried on squadron carts. If that were done the cavalry would be infinitely more mobile; and he ventured to suggest to the mind of the intelligent Secretary of State for War that that would make the cavalry more useful.

SUPPLY [12TH APRIL].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [12TH APRIL].

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,646,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  2. Sec. 1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,044,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c, including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  3. Sec. 2. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,062,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c, including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  4."That a sum, not exceeding £2,428,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  5."That a sum, not exceeding £293,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  6."That a sum, not exceeding £15,500 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £72,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding£404,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve (including Seamen Pensioner Reserve), and the Royal Naval Volunteers, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £444,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

  211
  Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  10."That a sum, not exceeding £796,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay, to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1905."
  11."That a sum, not exceeding £353,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Commiteee in the said Resolution."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONcomplained that these Naval Votes had rather suddenly been sprung upon the House; that two days ago the Prime Minister had stated that he only proposed to take Votes 1 and 8, and therefore he (Mr. Robertson) moved that this particular item be postponed, and that the same course should be taken with the following Votes.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said he consented to the Motion.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Second Resolution.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid with regard to the subject matter of this Vote he might remind the House that when the Naval Votes were last before the Committee of Supply the serious discussion as to the naval programme of the year was by general consent post-
  212
  poned to a later date, and he did not propose to go into that matter now, but to wait until the new policy of the Admiralty was stated. There were only one or two points to which he would call attention. One was the question of boilers.
  MR. SPEAKERwas understood to rule that the question of boilers could not be raised upon this Vote.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that in Committee of Supply the Committee had been allowed to discuss the whole question on this particular Vote but if Mr. Speaker ruled that he was out of order in discussing it now he would reserve what he had to say on that point. What he really wished to do, so far as Mr. Speaker's ruling would permit, was to call the special attention of the House to the unique circumstances under which this Vote was being taken this year. One of the most remarkable examples of the way in which the financial control of this House was being curtailed was that after the House had limited by its Rules the number of days on which Supply was to be discussed they found that a large portion of the time allotted for the discussion of Supply was taken up the discussion of private business. The Government was not responsible for this, nor was the official whose duty it was to regulate private business in the House. He made no complaint with regard to it and merely desired to point out that on every occasion when Supply was to be discussed—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that this subject was not relevant to the Vote under discussion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was induced to mention the fact because of the circumstance that a great portion of the time of the Evening Sitting was to be occupied by the discussion of a private Bill. What he wanted to know, in the interest of public business, was what would be the exact financial result of passing this Resolution. The House must remember that this Resolution had been suddenly sprung upon it, and that in answer to an inquiry he made, it was stated that it was necessary for Treasury reasons. That

  213
  immediately put him on the scent of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The real reason why this Vote was to be passed to-day was that it would enable the Admiralty to get hold of money which had been granted for other purposes, by the one Consolidated Fund Act that had been passed this session, for naval purposes. Few Members of Parliament were aware of the fact recently stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that under the Public Accounts and Charges Act of 1891 it was possible to direct to Navy or Army purposes money voted by the House for Civil Service purposes. He might be permitted to say that the money granted at the beginning of the session for Naval Supply amounted to about twelve weeks supply, while that for the Army was about three weeks supply, and that for the Civil Services about twenty-three weeks supply. It might very well be that the naval money was now exhausted because they were now told that the large sum granted in the beginning of the year for Civil Services would have to be made available for the Naval Vote. That was a matter that was well worth the serious consideration of the House, because it was owing to that fact that the House now found itself in this extraordinary position. Everything would be legitimised if these Resolutions were followed by Resolutions of Ways and Means to provide the money, and by the setting up of a new Consolidated Fund Bill. That was an old constitutional practice of the House which the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood as well as anybody.
  MR SPEAKERsaid he failed to see how this subject could be raised on the Resolution now before the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid his point was that the passing of these Resolutions would have a most unusual consequence unless followed by the practice which he had indicated. It would mean the allocation of money granted for one purpose to quite a different purpose.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)asked whether the Committee were not entitled to information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether if they passed
  214
  this Resolution there was any security that the money would be expended on the purposes for which it was voted.
  MR. SPEAKER: said that that point could not be raised on the question of whether or not the sum mentioned was one which ought to be voted for the purpose named in the Resolution. He would not raise any objection to a Question being asked and answered across the floor of the House, but he was bound to object to a discussion as to what was the legal and constitutional method of ultimately dealing with the Supply, whether by a Consolidated Fund Bill, by the Appropriation Bill at the end of the session or by a Resolution under the Act of 1891. The question here was whether the sum named was a proper sum to be granted.
  MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)asked whether it was not open to his hon. friend to point out the inconvenience of the Committee voting this sum of money for a particular purpose when there was reason to believe it would be applied to another purpose.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)thought the point the hon. Member desired to raise had reference to the effect of Section 2 (1) of the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891, and he submitted that that was not a matter that could be discussed in Committee of Supply or on Report. The course of action was laid down by statute and the action of the Treasury was in pursuance of the statute.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was the converse of the argument of the hon. Member for Dundee, whose complaint was that money already capable of being issued under the Act of 1891 would be issued for this service if the Resolution were voted. Was it not pertinent to the passing of the Resolution that the House should consider what its effect would be?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it would not be pertinent to inquire whether, after the money was granted, it was likely the

  215
  Treasury would act legally or illegally in appropriating money for the purposes named in the Resolution. That question did not arise on the Vote in Committee of Supply or on Report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the question of the Treasury acting legally or illegally did not arise. There was no Question that the Treasury could legally take money voted for the Civil Service, and, if this Resolution were passed, apply it to the purposes of the Navy; and that, he believed, was the objection entertained by the hon. Member opposite to the passing of the Resolution.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that made it quite clear that the question referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee could not arise on the Resolution, as the suggestion was simply that something would take place which was perfectly legal under an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member was finding fault with that Act.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was extremely difficult to state the point he desired to make. He did not challenge the law as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he wanted to point out was that on the facts of the present year the passing of this Resolution would have serious consequences. Money granted for the Civil Service in the first Consolidated Fund Act might, would, and must be applied by the Government to purposes other than that for which it was voted.
  MR. SPEAKER: I still think that this is not in order on this Resolution.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he had nearly finished all he intended to say on the matter, and he thanked Mr. Speaker for the consideration he had shown him.
  MR. KEARLEYcalled attention to the manner in which a man permanently injured in the service of the Admiralty had been treated by the Department. The Admiralty had a scheme, to which the employees had assented, by which they contracted out of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The man to whose case he desired to
  216
  refer had been permanently injured through a piece of timber falling on his head, and the Admiralty, instead of giving the man a pension or compensation in accordance with their agreement— under which persons permanently disabled were promised 24/60ths of their last emoluments—had simply made him an allowance for six months, at the end of which period the case was to be further considered. The accident happened sixteen months ago and he submitted that the Admiralty ought now to deal with the case in the manner provided for by the agreement. There was no doubt whatever as to the total and permanent disablement, and it was extremely hard that the sufferings of the man should be aggravated by the anxiety and worry connected with the uncertainty of the future. If the workman was in a position to lodge a complaint with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, an inquiry would be held, and the power of contracting out withdrawn from the Admiralty. The matter was a most important one as the case was merely typical of many, and he would be glad to hear the Admiralty's explanation of the business. He wished to raise another question. A couple of months ago he pointed out the rental conditions of Devonport and that it would be only fair to make the same arrangements there as appertained in London by which the police received lodging allowance on a scale according to the conditions of the rent they had to pay. The Home Secretary gave an undertaking that he would have an inquiry held by the Chief Commissioner of Police, and that if what he had stated was found to be true he would make allowance as in the Metropolis. He had given the Home Secretary three hours notice that the question was going to be raised, but the right hon. Gentleman had not yet arrived in the House. Under those circumstances he did not know what his rights would be. Had he to continue speaking until the right hon. Gentleman came in? [An HON. MEMBER: You had better not sit down.] Meanwhile he would turn to another question, there were a considerable number of discharges going on in Devonport dockyard He believed about 200 men had been under notice during the last two or three weeks. It might possibly be due to some

  217
  adjustment between one branch and another.
  MR. PEETYMAN: That is the fact.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he had mentioned all he desired to say and he did not wish to waste the time of the House by killing time until the Home Secretary should arrive. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might treat the House with more consideration.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he would ask his right hon. friend to give a reply to the question when he came in.
  MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he had received some correspondence upon the same subject; and perhaps his right hon. friend would be able to tell him whether the matter had been considered.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said he had made inquiries in Devonport and other dockyards into the circumstances in which the police had to find accommodation. On the whole the rent did not seem to press so heavily on the men in these stations as it did in London, but their was it seemed to him sufficient reason for extending the minimum allowance granted in London of 1s. 6d. per week to such cases in the dockyards as came within the same conditions as governed the grant in London. He saw no reason why the dockyard police should be treated differently, and he was ready to apply the same regulations under the same conditions as applied in London, e.g., that the men lived in approved quarters near their work and necessarily paid 6s. a week and upwards for rent.
  MR. BUCHANANasked for a short statement as to the views of the Government in regard to the naval programme which was laid before the House at the begining of the year. It was more than two months since the Vote was passed in Committee of Supply, and more than three months since the Navy Estimates were laid before the House, and a good deal had happened since
  218
  then. They were told early in the session that the naval programme might have to be modified, and he pointed out at that time that it was unwise from a financial point of view, when grave problems in naval warfare in the Far East were being solved, to commit this country irretrievably to the full programme of construction, which was exceedingly costly, and in regard to which they were not absolutely clear that they had arrived at the best possible type. He alluded in particular to the expenditure recommended this year, amounting to over £3,000,000, upon the three battleships of the "King Edward VII." type which they were told were of a type that the Admiralty did not originally intended to adopt, but which at the last moment they resolved to build. In regard to the scouts built within the last two or three years that seemed to him to be a rather rash form of expenditure.
  MR. PRETYMAN: That question will come up under a subsequent Vote.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he was only going to say that this was another illustration of the way in which the Admiralty was apt to commit itself somewhat rapidly to a form of construction which would entail a very large expenditure before they were satisfied that it was the best form of ship to construct. This caused them to be suspicious of the way the Admiralty undertook large expenditure. He wished to know whether the Secretary to the Admiralty would during the present session state if the naval programme was going to be modified in any degree, and, if so, would he also say in what way it was going to be modified.
  Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid there had been a good many changes backwards and forwards with regard to Wei-hai-Wei. He noticed on page 120 of the Navy Estimates an expenditure of £500 for a King's Harbour Master and Naval Executive Officer at Wei-hai-Wei. That seemed to indicate that Wei-hai-Wei was now being treated as a dockyard port. He understood that the fortifications had been put an end to, and the only establishment there at the present moment was a naval hospital. In the

  219
  explanation given by the First Lord of the Admiralty it was said that coaling accommodation had been provided at Wei-hai-Wei, but they had not been informed as to that provision. He was aware that the difficulty was that the entrancs to Wei-hai-Wei was very broad, and could not be effectively closed against torpedo attacks; and therefore he thought the House ought to be informed with regard to the provision of coaling accommodation at Wei-hai-Wei. He wished to know if any change had come about as to the use which was to be made of that place. The appointment of a King's Harbour Master seemed to indicate something more had been contemplated.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that in regard to the case mentioned by Mr. Kearley he was sorry he had not given notice. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case some time ago in the Lobby.
  MR. KEARLEY: I gave notice to the Civil Lord in writing.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it was impossible to remember for several months the details of a case of this kind. These cases must be dealt with on their merits, and it was impossible to lay down a general rule. Each case was gone into most carefully. There was every desire that an employee should get something, certainly not worse, but slightly better, than he was entitled to under the Act. He was sure the Civil Lord would look into this particular case, and send a report to the hon. Member. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean the King's Harbour Master there had the control of the whole water area, and he had no special connection with the hospital or the coaling station. TheAdmiralty were responsible for the berthing of all ships at Wei-hai-Wei whether they were Admiralty ships or other shipping, and therefore it was necessary to appoint a King's Harbour Master and that was the reason why he was appointed. With regard to the coaling station he explained it to the House two years ago. The amount of coal kept at Wei-hai-Wei was 6,000 tons.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: But this is a new matter this year in the statement
  220
  of the First Lord accompanying the Estimates.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that was the same matter. He believed that the accommodation had now been completed although it was not completed at the time the statement was issued. There had been no variation from the statement in regard to providing accommodation for 6,000 tons of coal. The question of the hospital was at this moment being considered. The state of affairs in the Far East might altogether change the situation there, and therefore no expenditure at the present moment was being incurred there and the matter had been hung up. He might say, in answer to the definite question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that no change in the programme already announced was contemplated—namely, two battleships, four armed cruisers, and fourteen destroyers.
  Third Resolution.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was sorry to be under the necessity of addressing the House again, but what he had to say about shipbuilding was more relevant to Section 2 than Section 1. He for one, and the hon. Member for East Perthshire for another, refused to admit that the assent of Parliament had been given to the new construction programme of the year. It had never been discussed. It was put off to another occasion two and a half months ago. He thought it was right that the discussion of the new programme should come late rather than early in the year. They were all agreed that they should abstain from discussing new construction on Sections 1 and 2, and that it should be brought up formally on Section 3. This was the 30th of June, and there was still a month available for discussing the Vote. They were promised a day for that Vote. He was perfectly certain that an opportunity would be afforded to the House for the discussion of the new naval programme, but with the Speaker in the Chair it would be a hopeless failure. It could not be properly discussed except in Committee, when hon. Gentlemen could speak more than once,

  221
  and when they could be answered as often as might be necessary. He only wanted on this occasion to say that he thought they ought to know something now about the overdue Report of the Boiler Committee. There was a Boiler Committee still sitting dealing with the problem of boilers, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether any Report had been presented, and, if so, whether it would be submitted to the House. He had pressed the hon. Gentleman, by means of Questions addressed to him, several times for the report of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Submarine A 1. They had abstained from discussing this matter while the Court was sitting, but the inquiry had now been completed, and he thought the House was entitled to have the report of that Court. If the report was confidential something as a substitute for it ought to be produced. His hon. friend the Member for East Perthshire had alluded to the new class of vessels called scouts. There had been a great deal of alarmist literature appearing lately on the subject, and he thought it might be useful if the hon. Gentleman were to give the House some reassuring declaration as to the fitness of this class of vessel for the purpose for which it was designed.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was no doubt that the Report of the Boiler Committee had been in the hands of the Admiralty for a considerable time, and there was no reason why it should not have been published at least a month ago. It had been stated, not in the authorised quarters, but in that portion of the Press which deal twith naval questions, that there was considerable difference of opinion in the Admiralty as to the best class of boiler to adopt. It had been said that as the result of the trials which had taken place the new First Sea Lord took a wholly different view from that taken by the Controller of the Navy, though he did not in the least believe that there was any foundation for that statement. As the statement had been made, and as the Report of the Boiler Committee had been ready for a considerable time, it would be wise to give to the House the authorised opinions of those gentlemen, and if necessary a
  222
  note from the Admiralty themselves on that Report, because all sorts of unauthorised stories were going about. The friends of each class of boilers had their say, and all this could be put an end to by the publication of the Report.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the introduction of the new class of scouts was the most important departure the Government had taken for many a long day. He asked for information in regard to the new vessels. If they were successful they would entirely obviate the necessity of subsidising the merchantfleet. They were contrived and designed for the sole purpose of replacing the merchant cruisers—the Cunarders—but, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, very considerable doubt had been thrown upon one of their most important features, namely, their area of action. An article in The Times had raised the doubt, though he believed that it was an absurdly exaggerated article. Certainly the alarmist tone adopted was not in the least justified by the facts. The scout vessels had been represented to be practically useless in carrying sufficient coal or any area of action necessary for a scouting vessel. Personally, he had great hopes of the vessel, though it would be well if the Admiralty would give the House a reassuring account of the scout class of vessel so as to dispel the deep suspicion which had been cast upon it by The Times article. He had advocated the adoption of oil fuel for the Navy for the last dozen years. He believed that there was a large amount of oil fuel in the country, and he understood that an experiment with this fuel had been carried out. Was the Admiralty satisfied that there were adequate supplies of oil fuel in this country? In his opinion oil fuel doubled the area of action of ships, and it was no exaggeration to say that it was worth twice as much to a ship as coal. The consideration for the Navy was whether we could have a sufficient supply of oil fuel in this country. He believed we could. The Estimates contained a sum amounting to over £2,000,000 for coal in the dockyards. Was it the practice of the Admiralty when foreign war vessels entered our ports to allow them to take in a supply of coal, or were the

  223
  foreign war vessels referred to the private trader? Care had to be exercised in this matter or fear of creating a breach of the laws of neutrality in helping what might possibly be a belligerent vessel. Was a condition enforced upon such vessels to the effect that the coal would only be used to allow the to go back to their own ports and not for belligerent purposes?
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that the idea of building these scouts was that they should have equal speed but a greater radius of action than destroyers; and, therefore, they would avoid the necessity of any Admiral commanding a fleet using destroyers for purely scouting purposes when they were required for other purposes. That was the real origin of these scouting ships. Eight of them were being built. The purpose for which these vessels had been specially designed was to accompany a fleet and clear out the smaller craft which might endanger the safety of the fleet. It was not intended to lay down any more of this class until the value of the eight now under construction had been actually tested. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had referred to an article in The Times in which the figures quoted were considerably overdrawn. The whole gravamen of that article was in respect of the coal supply, but there was a mistake in the figures quoted, viz., that when these vessels were steaming at their normal draught they would be only carrying 150 tons of coal. That was not the fact. The draught which was imposed at their trials required them to carry sufficient coal to steam 3,000 miles at a speed of ten knots, and the quantity would vary slightly in different vessels. These vessels were not designed by the Admiralty. They had been frequently told that it was thought desirable to give an opportunity to eminent private naval draughtsmen to design ships for the Royal Navy and give them a tee hand. In this particular case the private firms in this country had been given that opportunity provided that they could fulfil the particular requirements as to speed and radius of action. They were permitted to send in their own specifications and designs, and the result was the eight vessels were now under con-
  224
  struction. Four firms were building them —two each. Messrs. Armstrong; Vickers; Fairfield; and Cammell, Laird and Company. Each of these vessels fulfilled the requirements of the Admiralty, although there were certain variations in the coal-bunker capacity. The largest capacity was 600 tons, which was considerably more than was indicated in The Times article. He joined issue with the hon. Member in his statement that a third-class cruiser would be a better vessel for the purpose for which these vessels were designed. The cost of a scout was very much the same as a third-class cruiser, which could only proceed at the rate of twenty-two knots an hour, but which had a more powerful armament. In the case of the scout they had the extra speed and so they had to sacrifice something in the way of armament. The purpose of the scout was that it should be able to approach an enemy's fleet consisting of a number of swift cruisers, and be able to escape and return and give information to the Admiral Commanding-in-Chief. It was perfectly clear that a third-class cruiser armament would give her no advantage, because she would not be able to fight a swift first or second-class cruiser of the enemy's fleet, and therefore her armament in that particular respect would be wasted, while the extra three-knots speed of the scout would be far more useful for the particular purpose he had indicated. The Admiralty had never claimed, and did not now claim, that these scouts would be fit for ocean work. They were fitted specially for Mediterranean work, and would be useful also for Channel work within the compass of their radius of action. But they were not designed for long-distance ocean work. It was not pretended that they were designed to accompany a fleet across the Atlantic. What it came to was this— that they were costly vessels, perhaps, but that they were the cheapest vessels and the smallest which could steam twenty-five knots for eight hours in succession; and that really was the problem set to the designers of the private firms. At the same time, they could steam 3,000 miles at the rate of ten knots an hour. When these eight scouts had been tested at sea, they would then be in a

  225
  position to decide whether they ought to ask the House to vote money for more of them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if he was right in saying that while at ten knots the scouts could steam 3,000 miles, at twenty-five knots they could steam only 200 miles.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that 3,000 miles at ten knots was limited by coal capacity, and twenty-five knots for eight hours was not limited by coal capacity. The limit was that of the engine power. The scouts could not steam twenty-five knots an hour for more than eight hours without some relaxation of the strain on the machinery. The destroyers could team only twenty-five knots an hour for not more than four hours.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the scouts could steam twenty-five knots for eight hours, and then, after being eased down, steam another twenty-five knots.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Certainly. With regard to the inquiry into the loss of Submarine A1 he understood a statement was desired on a subsequent Vote.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the House was promised very definitely that there should be a general statement, not only a statement with reference to the loss of Submarine A1.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he would be perfectly prepared to make a statement; but he thought it could be made with better effect on a future occasion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked if the report of the inquiry would be issued.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he was afraid he could not promise the hon. Gentleman the report of the inquiry. On principle such reports were not published. As to the Boiler Committee, the Admiralty had received an interim Report, and the final Report was daily expected. He was glad to be able to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that he heard no suggestion of any difference of opinion within the Admiralty or among distinguished
  226
  naval officers outside the Admiralty with regard to the matter. As to oil fuel, it was a most important question, to which the Admiralty had for some time been devoting a great deal of attention. It was a question, however, which in the interests of the Navy he would not deal with at any great length. He would, however, refer to two points. If a supply could be obtained from within the British Empire, which would be accessible in war time, then he thought the requirements would be met. The point, however, was not as to whether a supply was or was not in the British Empire, but whether the supply would be available both in peace and war, and whether they should be able to develop in peace time supplies that would be available in time of war. He could inform the hon. Gentleman that there was a prospect, certainly a possibility, of such a supply being obtained. That was the point of view from which the matter was being considered by the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman said that oil fuel would double the radius of action; but he did not wish the House to accept that statement as being endorsed by the Admiralty. There were many advantages in the use of oil fuel; but one point should not be lost sight of, and that was that coal was abundant and obtainable in all quarters of the globe; and until oil was equally available it would be impossible to rely upon it solely for fuel. If the experiments in oil which were now being made by the Admiralty were successful, and if adequate supplies of oil were available, no doubt the proper arrangement would be the use of coal and oil in combination as fuel. In that way a considerable amount of labour in the stokehole would be avoided. With regard to the supply of coal by the Admiralty to foreign warships, as a general rule foreign warships obtained their supplies from the ordinary merchants of the port. But if the Admiralty were desired for a special reason, and as a matter of courtesy and convenience, to supply coal to a warship of another Power, they would consider the application on its merits. It would only be granted under exceptional circumstances and with the most careful safeguards.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the House was indebted to the hon. Gentleman for

  227
  his statement, which justified the criticisms which had been advanced. If the Admiralty were engaged in totally novel experiments, they ought to be conducted on a limited scale; and should not involve the country in more expense than was absolutely necessary. Hon. Gentlemen opposite always asked if the House was going to refuse expenditure on the Navy. They did not want to refuse expenditure; but they wanted to know whether it was necessary or not. He gathered that the scouts were something between a third-class cruiser and a destroyer; and that they cost about the same as a third-class cruiser, and three times as much as a destroyer. The Admiralty might be justified in making these experiments, but in common prudence they should not have embarked on a scheme necessitating the building of eight ships, but have contented themselves with experimenting with two or, at the outside, three vessels. He did not pretend to follow the whole subject, but the way it came home to the laymen of the House like himself was that it was of little use for these ships to go at a speed of twenty knots from Gibraltar to Malta, if having done that they had not sufficient coal to come back. It was quite clear that at the present moment the Admiralty were in doubt as to whether this experiment was going to be successful or not. In his opinion, under the circumstances, the House was justified in watching very narrowly any new departure made by the Admiralty having regard to the consequences involved.
  Further Consideration of subsequent Resolutions deferred till Monday next.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5.

    CLASS I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,500, be
    228
    granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid when this Vote was under consideration before he raised the question of excessive expenditure with regard to it. On that occasion the noble Lord succeeded in talking out his own Vote, and it was for the purpose of giving the noble Lord an opportunity of making the statement which he did not then make that he (Mr. Whitley) now proposed to move to reduce the Vote by a sum of £5,000. The expenditure on the Royal Palaces after the King came into residence and the Prince of Wales came to Marlborough House was necessary, as every one would admit, but there was no reason for making it an annual expenditure. He contended that £40,000 was far too large an amount for maintenance and repairs, and he begged to move a reduction of £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £30,500, be granted for the said service."—
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid as we had a Sovereign and all the appurtenances of Royalty we must behave handsomely to the King and all that belonged to him. There was no more rigid economist than himself, and he had on many occasions attacked Votes and had succeeded in getting them reduced, but if there was one item in the whole category of expenditure in this country that ought to be agreed to it was the item now before the Committee. The sum was really a very small one upon which to keep up the state of magnificence befitting a country with a Royal Sovereign, and he could not understand the hesitation in voting the money. No doubt there were items in regard to which economies might be effected, but that was a matter to be discussed on the salary of the First Commissioner of Works, who was responsible for any improprieties or extravagances in the Votes, and when the proper occasion arrived he would be

    229
    prepared to express his opinion of the gentleman at the head of that Department and of the noble Lord so far as the Rules of the House would allow.
    MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)asked whether the works at Holyrood had been completed and whether the Palace was now fit for a human being to live in. A certain amount of money had been spent, and it was desirable that the Committee should be assured that it had been wisely spent, so that in the event of the King again visiting Scotland there would be no obstacle in the way of his occupying Holyrood Palace.
    MR. CALDWELLpointed out that last year the Vote for Holyrood Palace came to £6,000, and this year it was £2,600. It was obvious, he thought, from that fact that as Holyrood was a very old Palace and one which the King intended to occupy when in Scotland, that the amount of money spent upon it was absolutely inadequate for the purpose of putting the Palace into anything like a proper condition for occupation and for the entertainment and so forth connected with the Court. Speaking of the Vote generally, he thought it ought to be remembered that during the last year or two there had been a larger expenditure on the Palaces in consequence of the accession of the King. It was not, therefore, fair to contrast the figures of the present year with those of recent years. He thought, however, that some explanation should be given of the £1,000 for wine cellars at St. James's Palace.
    MR. TOMKINSONasked for an explanation of the large expenditure proposed on the Royal kitchen gardens at Windsor.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the sum proposed to be spent on the kitchen gardens at Windsor was doubtless unusually large, but it was for the carrying out of new works and improvements which ought really to have been effected during the last twenty years. With regard to the £1,000 for wine cellars at St. James's Palace, as there were at present no wine cellars at
    230
    Buckingham Palace, all the wine was kept at St. James's Palace, and it was considered absolutely necessary that the wine cellars there, which were extremely ill-fitted and ill-constructe, should be improved. As to the complaint brought by the hon. Member for Halifax, the charge of extravagance was of a very general character, and therefore it was possible to give only a very general reply. It was said that the cost of maintenance and repairs was especially extravagant, but he did not think that £40,000 was an excessive expenditure. On the contrary, he believed it was very moderate, considering the scale of magnificence and the number of the Royal Palaces which had to be maintained. Moreover, it had to be remembered that a number of the Palaces had altogether ceased to be residences of the Sovereign, and had become nothing more nor less than places of pleasure and public resort. Hampton Court, for instance, cost £6,000 a year for maintenance and repairs, an insignificant sum considering the amount of profit and pleasure the public deprived from it. As showing how it was appreciated, he mentioned that the picture galleries alone were last year visited by 620,000 people, while the National Gallery, which was right in the heart of London, was only vis ted by 457,000 during the same period. Hampton Court had long ceased to be a Royal residence, and as one of the most beautiful and interesting buildings in Europe the expenditure upon it would not be grudged. The repairs and drainage at Holyrood were concluded, and an independent authority had pronounced the building to be in a sound habitable condition. It could not be justly said that Holyrood was starved, and should His Majesty have occasion to take up his residence there some improvements in furnishing would be all that would be required. Last year the sum spent at Holyrood was larger than the sum spent at Buckingham Palace. This year they were spending £2,600 there as compared with £4,000 at Buckingham Palace.
    MR. JOHN BURNSappealed to the noble Lord not only to bear in mind the observations of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, with which he

    231
    entirely agreed in regard to the Royal Palaces, but also to remember that there ought to be some differentiation between Royal Palaces in the personal occupancy of the Crown and the other Royal Palaces which frequently sheltered themselves behind His Majesty's Privy Purse and the Civil List. His Majesty ought to have an inclusive sum to spend in whatever way he pleased. He was in favour of equal rights for all white men, and the House of Commons had no right to intrude into the private affairs of anybody high or low. He thought the item of £6,000 for Hampton Court Palace gave good value to the public, but he would like to know what the £1,350 for new works was for. It might be for new bicycle sheds for the pensioned tenants at Hampton Court, or it might be for new and ornate outhouses for keeping petroleum for their motor - cars and lamps. He did not think that His Majesty ought to be debited with what was pit up for the convenience of the tenants. Until they differentiated between Royal Palaces and ex-Royal Palaces occupied by officials and pensioned tenants they could never have economy, because these people sheltered themselves behind the general designation of Royal Palace and that disarmed criticism. There was also a sum of £2,080 for new works, alterations, and additions at St. James's Palace. If that was spent upon State rooms he did not mind, but he wanted to know how much of it was spent upon official residences. He knew the average official pretty well, and he generally fastened himself on to a public building, first in two rooms, then probably in four, five, six, and ten rooms; then he managed to appropriate part of the Royal garden as a lawn and another piece for a tennis court. At Hampton Court great golf courses were being laid out and had been used for years for this purpose and they spoiled the beauty of the view.
    He came now to another point the Lord Chamberlain's residence, in respect of which there was a charge of £300. Here was a point for fair criticism. The charge was for raising the height of bedrooms in the cottage of one of the officials in residence, and that struck him as being an unreasonable amount; but because it was bracketed with the
    232
    £40,000 for Royal Palaces, they were prevented from giving it that criticism which it deserved. He would suggest that in future Estimates they should get a statement of the charges for Royal Palaces and gardens proper, and for ex-Royal Palaces; and further, that the expenditure proposed to be incurred in connection with officials who did not belong to the personal entourage of the King and Queen should be entirely separate. If that were done, they would be able to criticise the various accounts submitted to them. He thought Hampton Court Palace was more beautiful than Fontainebleau. The Palace and gardens were the most beautiful in Europe, but he was convinced that scores of thousands of pounds had been spent on that Palace in the last forty or fifty years in carrying out the whims, fads, and transient caprices of the tenants in residence, and the House of Commons ought to put a stop to that kind of expenditure. The noble Lord deserved credit for the way in which he had severely jumped on some of the tenants, and prevented them from vandalising that beautiful structure. These officers and tenants had had too big a dip into the Treasury purse, and the time had arrived when that should be resisted and restricted. The only way in which it could be restricted and economy secured was to differentiate the different items in the Estimates in future so that they would be able to bring criticism to bear where it was due.
    MR. WHITLEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £69,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he wanted to make a claim for the extension of the ride in Hyde Park into Kensington Gardens. The present arrangement had

    233
    become a matter of very great discredit to the capital. The ride in Hyde Park was so short and inadequate that it really did not by any means fulfil the purposes of such a ride in a metropolis like this. Years ago, ho was informed, it was customary for riders to ride in Kensington Gardens along the broad avenue of trees where nobody was ever to be found—not so much as a nursery-maid or a baby, and where, consequently, riders might go without doing any injury to anybody. There was a very strong feeling among riders in the Park, who were numbered by thousands, that they had never been properly treated by the First Commissioner of Works or this House. This was not a trifling matter. The sum expended on the Row was extremely small, and he thought the House ought to be generous in regard to it. There was no difficulty except in the matter of money. He could get a petition signed by hundreds and thousands of people, but he should prefer to leave this to the intelligence of the noble Lord. The ride really required extension. Even the ride that existed was in a discreditable condition. They trusted that at last they had now found in the noble Lord a generous and appreciative spirit who would give them the boon which they had so long desired.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid the hon. Member for Lynn Regis was too young to remember the circumstances in connection with this matter. When the Great Exhibition of 1851 was built in Hyde Park, riders, as a concession, were allowed to ride in a certain portion of Kensington Gardens. The reason why this was done away with was that the nursery-maids found it somewhat difficult to look after their charges and enjoy the flirtations of military people. They got Members of the House of Commons to plead their case, and this House was so very gallant to the nursery-maids that riders were deprived of their right to go into Kensington Gardens. He did not see why they should not be allowed to ride into Kensington Gardens. In the Bois de Boulogne there were forty miles of a ride. Riding up and down the Row must be very dull work, even if the riders were admired by the people who came to
    234
    look at them. If the noble Lord could come to some arrangement with the nursery-maids everybody would think it desirable that riders should be allowed to go into Kensington Gardens.
    MR. TENNANTcalled attention to the condition of the roads in St. James's Park and Hyde Park. The surface of the roads from Storey's Gate to St. James's Palace was very discreditable. The surface of the roads from St. James's Palace, and from Buckingham Palace up Constitution Hill to Hyde Park Corner, and even in Hyde Park itself, was in holes, and the effect must be to wear out the tyres of carriages in a most extraordinary manner.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAM ROADS BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEasked the House to reconsider the decision which had been arrived at by the Committee upstairs in regard to the Bill. He was conscious of the reluctance which the House always felt to reconsider the decisions of its Committees, but under special circumstances, and when those decisions involved a far-reaching issue beyond anything affecting the particular locality primarily interested in the Bill, it had constantly been the habit of the House to ask for such reconsideration. The Bill before the House did involve such far-reaching issues, which the municipalities of the country regarded as of very serious importance to the interests of the ratepayers and the public generally. It would probably be urged that it would

  235
  have been more proper and convenient to raise the question on the Order for the Second Reading, and he did not deny that that would have been better; but the only object which the Newcastle Corporation authorities had in abstaining was consideration for the time of the House, together with a belief that the Committee would not give the powers sought for. The hon. Member went on to describe the systems of the Newcastle Corporation and the Tyneside Tramways Company, by whom the present measure was being promoted, and explained that the Corporation had a double track of twenty-three miles, with one mile and a quarter of single track. There were 170 cars in actual use, and about twenty building. Over £1,250,000 of capital had been expended, 38,500,000 passengers were annually being carried, and the car mileage was nearly 4,000,000, while the rate of expenditure to receipts was about 65 per cent. That was the position of the corporation tramways. The company's system was three and a half miles of double track and five and a half miles of single track. The number of cars was twenty-two, the capital expended £135,000; and the number of passengers carried annually was 2,500,000, and the rate of expenditure in proportion to receipts was 90 per cent. Those were the respective positions of the corporation and the Tyneside company, and what the latter sought to do by the Bill was to connect up its system at its western boundary with the eastern boundary of the corporation on each of two routes, known as the higher and the lower, so as to form one continuous system, and similarly to extend the Gosforth system in the north.
  Of course, the Committee upstairs no doubt had desired to know, as that House would desire to know, what was the grievance which the Tyneside company had, and what case they could make out, to induce Parliament to give them the running powers which they sought over the twenty-three miles of the corporation tramway system, over eleven miles of which the Committee had actually recommended that such powers should be granted. It was specially necessary that a good case should be made out, because on the one hand, they had a private dividend-earning company, and on the other they had the fact that the running
  236
  powers sought were over a system maintained by the ratepayers of Newcastle. Of course, it was agreed that a case of public necessity must be made out in order to induce Parliament to agree to such an extraordinary use of the corporation system as the granting of compulsory running powers over it by a private company. It was said that the grievance of the public, which the company sought to remedy, was that there was a large population at Wallsend, just beyond the corporation system terminus, but upon the company's own evidence it could not be denied that of the travelling public not more than one-fifth got into the company's cars on arriving at the city boundaries. It went without saying that everyone would like to travel from point to point by a through route, but a great city like Newcastle, in the regulation of its tramway system, had to consider what was practicable with regard to through routes. It was given in evidence in this case that the best use possible had been made of through routes from the far west to the far east. It was impossible to give the convenience sought by the company without dislocating or upsetting the existing system and inconveniencing hundreds of thousands for the purpose of obliging the few passengers who lived in or travelled from or beyond Wallsend. It was proposed that there should be alternate cars, but the company's cars were not to run further west than the centre of the city, so that the through route would be turned from an eight-minute into a six-teen-minute service. What was the public demand for the Bill? He had sought in vain to find more than the petitions of fifty-five manufacturers concerned in Tyneside industries, a large number of whom are interested in the company. It was said they represented 27,000 workmen, but the evidence of these workmen themselves was all the other way. The local authorities, who represented two-thirds of the 100,000 population served by the company, were either opposed or were neutral. Only the Wallsend local authority was in favour of it, and many of its members were interested in the company. The effect of establishing the principle of granting compulsory running powers of this kind would be very far-reaching and

  237
  would not be confined to the locality. It was as the spokesman of a unanimous meeting of the representatives of the municipalities of the country that he asked to send the Bill back for further consideration by the Committee. There was no precedent for granting compulsory powers of this kind, except under very special circumstances. The case of the Bournemouth tramways was referred to before the Committee as a precedent for granting these compulsory powers, but it was a very exceptional case. He invited the House to consider what had happened in that case, because it illustrated the danger to which municipalities would be exposed if these powers were granted by Parliament. In the Bournemouth case a light railway was stated to be in course of promotion from Christchurch to Poole, running through Bournemouth. The Bournemouth Corporation opposed the scheme because they said the roads through Bournemouth were not suitable for it, and the result was that powers to run through Bournemouth were refused. Bournemouth in the following year came to Parliament and asked for power to construct a tramway system over the very roads on which the Light Railway Commission had decided that it was impossible to construct tramways; and the Committee, regarding the action of the corporation as something in the nature of a breach of faith, granted the company running powers over the proposed lines. What happened? Bournemouth having got the tramways, and the private company having got the running powers, which, by the way, they had never exercised, the company was now making a claim against the corporation, which had gone to arbitration, for £50,000 in respect of these running powers. Compensation for licences was not in it with that sort of procedure. It, however, had opened the eyes of the municipalities of the country, and it was for that reason that they appealed to Parliament to protect them against the mulcting of the ratepayers of the country by private companies for compensation, and against enhancing the value of private undertakings in this way at the public expense. Precisely the same thing might be done in this case of Newcastle without any
  238
  warrant. He asked that the Bill should be reconsidered in the light of these facts, and he hoped that the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for South Somerset might be able, without infringing the principle for which he was contending, to arrive at some mutually satisfactory arrangement. It was for that reason that, instead of meeting the Bill with a direct negative, he asked that it should be reconsidered. He was perfectly satisfied that the corporation of New-castle-on-Tyne had endeavoured to meet the public convenience in this matter, because they had proposed to run their cars right through to the centre of Wallsend, and in order to obviate any further inconvenience they had offered to give the benefit of the whole fares received for the last half mile, which was on the company's system, to the company. There was no doubt that if compulsory running powers were given to this company they would enormously enhance the value of their undertaking.
  SIR WALTER PLUMMERsaid that, in seconding the Motion, he believed that under present circumstances the time of Parliament could not be better occupied than in the discussion of this important question. A great principle was at stake, viz., the principle of compulsory powers as distinguished from voluntary agreement. It was true that Newcastle was at the present moment only concerned, but he was convinced that if this Bill passed in its present form, there was no other city in the country which would be safe from similar inroads. It was not a question whether two different tramway systems should have power to arrange through traffic, but whether one system should have compulsory powers over another, notwithstanding the great difference between them in regard to mileage and capital expenditure. The capital expenditure on the corporation tramway system was seven times greater than that of the private company, the car mileage was eight times greater, the number of cars was eight times greater, the amount of receipts was ten times greater. For the year ending 25th June the corporation system of tramways had carried 40,000,000 passengers and the cars had I travelled over 4,000,000 miles. He quoted

  239
  these figures because he was aware that a good deal would be heard in the course of the discussion about the convenience of the public; but care should be taken to suit the convenience of the majority of the public and not sacrifice that to the convenience of the minority. He believed in the greatest good for the greatest number. He ventured to contend that neither the company nor the corporation had started their tramway systems in a purely philanthropic spirit. They were started, as most things were in this material world, because it was believed that the tramways would pay. Certainly he knew that the ratepayers of Newcastle would never have sanctioned the expenditure of £1,100,000 from purely philanthropic motives, or unless they believed that they would retain full control over the system, and not be compelled to allow a private company to use their streets and lines. Different views were held with regard to municipalisation. He was one of those who had voted against the municipalisation of these tramways, but he felt that once the system was sanctioned, it was his duty loyally to endeavour to make it a success. It was because they believed that that success depended upon the corporation having full control of the streets and of their own tramways, that they felt so keenly this invasion by a private company. It seemed to him that the value of municipalisation would be reduced to a minimum if, after the corporation of Newcastle-on-Tyne had spent over a million sterling upon their tramways, they were compelled to admit small private companies to use their system. The Bill dealt with east and north of Newcastle, but if once it was established, a similar company would soon approach them from the west, while the tramway systems of every other city in the kingdom would be imperilled. From the point of view of the public convenience they had offered to run their cars out to Wallsend, the chief centre of population, and to erect there, at the point of junction of the two systems, a comfortable waiting room for the small number of passengers who would want to continue their journey further east. He did not believe that Parliament would compel the 'bus proprietors of the metropolis to establish through routes
  240
  everywhere. The thing was impracticable. Yet every day hundreds of thousands of people had to change twice or three times in order to get to and from their places of business and their residences. The question of public inconvenience had been magnified out of all proportion to its true value. The corporation of Newcastle had offered to extend their services on the two main routes, to deal with exceptional traffic during race meetings, and to make arrangements for extending the line a half mile east at Wallsend. If the Bill was re-committed they were willing to renew these offers. He was convinced that if the principle in the Bill was sanctioned, it would strike a serious blow at local self-government, and injuriously affect the prosperity and progress of the great municipalities.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'Bill,' and add the words 'be re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clauses 15 and 16.'"—(Sir James Woodhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said that as Chairman of the Committee which had considered the Bill, he ventured to think that his hon. friends had not approached this subject on any other ground than that of principle; but it was rather late in the day to raise the question of principle after the Bill had passed through the other House, and now came back to the Commons practically for Third Reading, without such principle being raised before. His hon. friend the Member for Huddersfield had asked, on various grounds, that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee. The Committee of this House had declined to give a roving commission to the tramways company, and had struck out the facilities clause which had been passed by the Lords, and had only given the company running powers over a portion of the Newcastle corporation tramways. The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that there was a great distinction between a private tramway company and a corporation. He could not understand what the hon. Member meant

  241
  by that. The hon. Member seemed to think that it was a right thing for the corporation to carry on a tramway for the benefit of the corporation and a wrong thing for a private company to carry on a tramway for its own benefit so long as it was to the public advantage that they should do so. His hon. friend was connected with private companies, and surely he must think that it was legitimate to make profit out of these private companies. The Newcastle corporation said they did not care about profit, but all that they desired was to do what they liked with their own. It was stated before the Committee that one of the objections to the tramway company was that they allowed advertisements to be placed in their cars, while the corporation sacrificed £4,000 or £5,000 by prohibiting advertisements in their cars, showing that the interests of the ratepayers was not considered in working the trams. When vested interests were talked about, it seemed to him that it was the vested interests of a great corporation which were in question—a corporation which said that they did not want to give facilities of travelling to the public at large by allowing others to invade their sacred grounds. In the old days the great agricultural landlords use to say that they would not allow the amenities of their estates to be interfered with by railways running through their estates, but Parliament compelled them. The sole point of view from which the Committee acted was that the one thing to be considered was, not the susceptibilities of the corporation or whether it would be profitable to the company to run their cars over the lines of the corporation, but whether it was to the interest of the travelling public. The question they had to consider was whether it would be convenient to the working men going to their work and returning to their homes, that there should be a system of through cars from one centre to another. The Committee over which he had the honour to preside was perfectly impartial and acted entirely from a judicial point of view in the public interest.
  He was rather surprised that the senior Member for Newcastle should have referred to the manufacturers as he did. Surely the manufacturers had a right to be considered. It was in
  242
  their interest as well as in the interest of their men that the men should be brought to their work as easily and as cheaply as possible. It had been said that they had had evidence from the trade unions against the Bill. That was quite true; but they had evidence also from working men—whether they were members of trade unions or not he did not know, but they, unlike the trades union witnesses, live outside the corporation area—who maintained that it would be a great convenience to them if these running powers were granted. He noticed that the trades unions of Newcastle had issued a circular to the House in which they stated that the Bill would rob them of their one successful municipal enterprise. He had the greatest sympathy with trade unions, and as a rule supported their demands in this House, and he could not help sympathising with the Newcastle trade unions who had apparently suffered so much from municipal mismanagement and misgovernment and who naturally supported their one successful municipal enterprise. The Bournemouth precedent did not enter into the minds of his Committee at all; but if his hon. friend asked that the Bill should be recommitted in order that a clause should be inserted that any increase of value from these running powers should not be taken into account he would be prepared to agree as he was opposed to such unearned increment. His hon. friend said that many men who broke the journey did not get into the tramcars again. There were two reasons for that. One was that if a man was near his home he did not think it worth while to enter another tramcar. The other was that the tramway company made a mistake in charging a penny instead of a halfpenny. It was suggested that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee to see if they could not get the two parties to agree to some compromise. The question would never have come before the House if a compromise had been possible. It would be more reasonable to suggest that the Bill should not be read a third time until the parties had themselves arrived at a satisfactory compromise. It did not influence the minds of the Committee that this was going to be made a test question

  243
  —a question of a municipality against a private concern. He very much regretted it was being dragged from being a local matter into a national matter. The Committees both of the House of Commons and the House of Lords were unanimously of opinion that it was desirable that running powers should be given. No doubt it would have been better if those powers could have been obtained by agreement instead of compulsion. An attempt to arrive at an agreement made in 1902 failed owing to the attitude of the corporation tramways committee. On that occasion, the chairman and vice-chairman of the committee who were in favour of running powers being given were beaten by only one vote and they resigned their positions. His hon. friend stated that the corporation was quite prepared to take over the most paying part of the company's line; but that was an offer to which the company would not agree. It was said that if running powers were given it would lead to the dislocation of the entire system; but his Committee, after careful consideration, did not agree with the statement; and it was provided that the regulations, conditions, and terms under which the running powers were to be exercised should be sanctioned and controlled by the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade should have power to appoint an arbitrator to settle such regulations, conditions, and terms if necessary. It had also been said that the company's employees would not observe the regulations of the corporation; but the Board of Trade had ample power with reference to that; and, as a matter of fact, the servants of the company would be, to all intents and purposes, the servants of the corporation while working within their area. He asked the House to consider whether it was wise to decline to accept the decision arrived at by Committees of both Houses and to decide that facilities should not be given which were to afford great masses of population means of being taken out easily and quickly from large centres to the country districts. He approved of municipal trading; but on the other hand he wanted to see it carried out on sane and Imperial lines and not from the narrow and parochial point of view urged that
  244
  night. He therefore resisted the Amendment.
  MR. HUGH SMITHsaid that he formerly supported the corporation in the municipalisation of the tramways. Now he supported the company and the Bill. His constituency was rather mixed in opinion upon this matter. Three distinct authorities had presented petitions in favour of the Bill, and another was opposed to it. Employers of labour, representing 27,000 workmen, had sent a petition in favour of the Bill, but it was said they did not really represent the opinion of the workmen. He was, however, perfectly satisfied in his own mind that the workmen did not care whether it was by the tramway of the corporation or of the company which had compulsory running powers, by which they travelled, so long as they could get to Wallsend. The whole question related to about 600 yards of tramway line which separated the corporation tramway from the centre of Wallsend. Many attempts had been made by the corporation to obtain powers to run a tramway to Wallsend. There were no less than four attempts to arrive at a compromise between the corporation and the company; but they were abortive. The first attempt was in 1903; and a quasi agreement was then drawn up. The tramway committee declined to discuss it, and it was thrown out. The second attempt was in 1904. Altogether, four unsuccessful attempts had been made by the company to come to an amicable agreement with the corporation. The Bill was considered for three days by the House of Lords Committee and for four days by the Committee of this House, and now the Motion for the rejection of the measure, which had stood on the Paper for some days, had suddenly been replaced by a Motion for re-committal. He submitted that if the principle was one of the enormous importance alleged, it ought to have been dealt with on the Second Reading. If the Motion were carried there would be another deadlock, as the parties interested were not at one in any way whatever. He welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, in which the hope was held out that if the Bill were recommitted some arrangement might be come to whereby mutual running powers would be granted.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid he had simply suggested that the House should not be committed to the principle until it had been inquired into by a Committee, and that in the meantime in this case, as had been done in many other cases, running powers might be arranged by mutual agreement.
  MR. HUGH SMITHunderstood the hon. Member to suggest that there was a likelihood of that being done.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid he did not represent the Newcastle Corporation. He had taken the matter up on public grounds, in the interests of municipalities generally.
  MR. HUGH SMITHasked why there had been all this waste of time and money if there was any chance of a compromise being arrived at? The working classes were to be penalised because they happened to work outside the city boundaries. In days gone by, cities of refuge used to be established for those who had broken the law, but by this Motion there would be set up all over the country cities of privilege, which reminded one not of the twentieth century, but of the middle ages. He earnesly hoped the corporation and the company would come together, so as to avoid what would in the future unquestionably be a grievous disadvantage to the whole community.
  MR. BENNin supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, said the Committee had considered the matter purely from the parochial point of view, and if its decision were upheld an important alteration would have been made in the tramway law of the Kingdom. By the Tramway Act of 1870 the local authority was supreme in regard to tramways within its district, but under the decision of the Committee the municipality would be displaced from that position. He asked the House to consider the question from the London point of view. There was no foundation for the suggestion that the London County Council proposed to exploit the Home counties in tramways matters; they had made, however, and were making, amicable arrangements with their
  246
  neighbours for running powers which would conduce to the best interests of the public, but they would strongly object to any compulsion. The tramway policy of the London County Council differed considerably from that of any tramway company. Companies very properly aimed at the earning of dividends; the London County Council wisely adopted the policy of pooling all tramway profits so that the money earned in the lucrative districts could be devoted to the establishment of tramways in those localities where trams preceded population. If the principle of this Bill obtained, that beneficent policy would be seriously interfered with. The London County Council system was touched by tramway companies at fifteen points, and if the decision of the Committee were upheld the municipal authority would be bombarded with applications for the admission of companies. How would the selection be made? How would it be possible to secure equal rights for all tramway companies surrounding London? Any such proposal was simply impossible. Moreover, this incursion of tramway companies would seriously interfere with the profit-earning capacity of the municipality. In connection with the Bill under consideration, a suggestion was made for getting over that difficulty. According to the documents circulated by the company, the terms of user were to be left, failing agreement, to the Board of Trade, and the company had offered in Committee that each side should take the net profits earned on its own lines. On the face of it that seemed a reasonable proposition but what would really happen was that the cars of the company would occupy the place of municipal cars on the lines within the municipality, and if the trade of the town sufficed only for one service of cars the earnings per car-mile would obviously be seriously reduced. Further, were the companies to use the power provided by the municipality for its own scheme? If so, that would raise considerable difficulty. In London, for instance, the London County Council were erecting generating stations for supplying its own service, and it would be able to supply power for these outside companies only by displacing cars of its own. He was

  247
  not at all opposed to proper arrangements being made for running powers on the border of the city. If a municipality and a corporation could not agree a sufficient remedy already existed, inasmuch as a November election would speedily set matters right in the event of the adoption of an unreasonable attitude by the local Authority. A great principle was involved in this Bill. Up to the present Parliament had jealously guarded the rights of municipalities in this respect, and he submitted that if the decision of the Committee were upheld it would be a disastrous thing for the municipalities of the country, and would do much to prevent the travelling public at large obtaining those facilities to which they were entitled.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,)said it was not intended to make this a Government question. It was not usual to treat private Bills as Party matters, and no exception to the usual practice would be made on the present occasion. The question, however, had excited much interest in the country, and the House would naturally expect the Government Department which had control of tramway matters to have a definite opinion on the subject and to express it. The Government had a definite opinion on the matter, and he would, as briefly but as strongly as he could, express it. There appeared to be an entire misapprehension as to the issue before the House. From certain speeches which had been delivered one would have supposed that the House was asked to decide whether or not municipalities should own tramways. It that were the issue he would certainly give a vote different from that which he intended to give, because, so far as he was personally concerned, he believed that experience had shown that municipalities could run tramways successfully, and that on the whole they ran them in the interest of the district by which they were elected. But that was not the issue. The importance of the matter had been enormously exaggerated. The question ought to be considered primarily, if not entirely, as a matter affecting the locality in which the tramways were running; it was an entire misapprehension to treat it as in any way a
  248
  question of general principle. That, at any rate, was his opinion. In his official capacity at the Board of Trade it had been his duty to listen to many speeches on the question of tramways in different parts of the country, and the advantages of a through service of trams were continually being pointed out. He ventured to submit that there never was a case in which those advantages were more clearly indicated than in that covered by the Bill. The House would remember a pathetic speech delivered by the hon. Member for Battersea a short time ago in regard to the terrible inconvenience young girls and others were subjected to by having to get out of the trams at Westminster Bridge and find their way by other means, frequently through the pouring rain, to the Embankment. But would not exactly the same inconveniences arise at Newcastle? Were there no young girls at Newcastle? Did it never rain so far north as Newcastle? It was frequently said that the best way of dealing successfully with the housing problems was by a good through system of trams. That argument never applied with more force than to the district concerned in this Bill. The Tyneside Tramways Company's system throughout its course was either bordered by workshops to which men had to go every day, or by land on which buildings for works were being erected and on which still more would be erected if there was a decent through service of trams. But it was really unnecessary to argue the advantages of a through service; everybody would admit them. As to the suggestion that the corporation had put forward an alternative proposal for overcoming the difficulty it should be remembered that they made no alternative proposal of any kind until after a decision had been given against them in another place. Their present proposal had been carefully considered and rejected by the Committee, and he thought the terms of the proposal had only to be stated to convince any impartial man that the Committee could have taken no other course with any show of fair play or justice. The proposal was that the Newcastle Corporation should run their trams over the Tyneside company's system into the heart of Wallsend—that was, through the one populous and paying district, and

  249
  that the company should have no powers of running cars over the corporation lines.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEpointed out that all the profits were to go to the company.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that that was true, but anybody connected with tramways knew that it was not possible to run the remainder of a system at an equally low rate unless they could run cars also on the portion of the system which paid best. But what made the proposal really impossible of acceptance was the fact that the corporation did not propose to run over the whole of the Tyneside Company's system. Had they proposed to do that the decision of the Committee might have been different. The corporation proposed to leave out of account altogether those districts which depended for their profit upon future development. It was urged that those districts were served by the railway, but the only way to compete with the railway was by a through service of trams. The Committee had decided that these facilities were required, and that the method proposed in the Bill was a reasonable way of providing the facilities. The objection of the Newcastle Corporation was that it would seriously interfere with the whole of the tramway system in Newcastle itself. He admitted that the convenience of the greater public had to be considered, and it was considered in this Bill, which simply proposed to do in Newcastle what had been done by agreement in dozens of cases elsewhere. As to the dislocation of the system, surely the difficulties were not greater if it was done by compulsion instead of by voluntary agreement? But the hon. Member himself had stated that if the Bill were recommitted it might be possible to arrange running powers by mutual agreement. Where, then, was the difficulty? If it could be done in the one case, surely it could be done in the other. The Board of Trade, however, was more concerned with the great principle which was said to be involved than with the purely local aspect of the question. He had listened carefully to the speeches with a view to learn what that principle was, and he thought he had found it. He would state it to the
  250
  House, and if he were wrong he would doubtless be corrected.
  MR. BENN: I never made such a statement.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the principle was that a private company trading for profit with powers granted by Parliament should not be allowed to have compulsory running powers over lines of tramways when worked by a local authority. He understood that was the principle. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] Now they had got it. He asked the House was that a principle which any sane man could adopt? Let him point out exactly what it meant. He would assume, for the sake of argument, that the whole fault lay with the corporation and that this difficulty was due to their obstinacy and perhaps to an exaggerated sense of their own importance. The principle he had laid down still held good. According to the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, no matter what might be the needs of the district, that district was to have nothing to say in the matter, and the local authority alone must decide and their decision must be final. What was the remedy? The hon. Member suggested an election. Had the hon. Member ever known a district where there was a jealousy existing between a town and a country district? He would state to the House what he thought should be the principle which should guide the House of Commons in this matter. The right to lay down a tramway was granted to a local authority or to a private company, and, the right having been granted, it became a monopoly. As between the two, Parliament gave the preference to the local authority, but once the privilege was given, both parties should be treated exactly in the same way. The question brought for the decision of Parliament was whether through facilities were required, and it was decided that they were, and Parliament in effect said to both parties, "You get your rights from us, and they are given to you not for you to do as you like with them. Through powers are required, and if you do not agree upon terms we will settle the terms for you." That had been done in the

  251
  present case. The corporation had made an enormous mistake in treating this as a test question, trying to imagine that a new principle was involved. There was no new principle; there were precedents for private companies having running powers over corporation lines. It was argued that there were special circumstances distinguishing these from the present case, but he did not see any difference except in the relative sizes of the districts. In the document sent out by the municipality it was stated that if the principle were affirmed by Parliament a company would only have to construct a short line linking up with a great municipal system, and they would be entitled to running powers over the longer system. Was there a word of truth in that statement? They would have the right to apply for running powers, but they would not obtain such powers unless Parliament were convinced that to grant them would be in the public interest. Would hon. Members say that in the county of Middlesex under no circumstances should a private trading company have running powers over the lines of a local authority, though one authority might have powers over the lines of another local authority? If the House upset the decision of the Committee they would establish the principle that there was to be one scale of justice for private companies and another scale for local bodies. As representing the Board of Trade, he was bound to say that such an action would, in their opinion, be most deplorable. It would be throwing obstacles in the way of private enterprise, and declaring that districts which were served by tramways owned by private companies should be treated in a less fair way than districts served by tramways run by local bodies. He thought this was a case where the decision of the Committee should be upheld.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could not follow the hon. Member's analogy in regard to the principle which guided the Board of Trade in tramway matters. They were not in favour of having these districts isolated, but what they had urged from the first was that, at all events, the corporation should have fair play. The Board of Trade, in holding the balance
  252
  between municipalities and private companies, ought to have considered the claims of the citizens of Newcastle as well as those who used the Tyneside system. He agreed that running powers were desirable where they were mutually agreed upon, but they should not be forced on one party against their will, either by Parliament or by anyone else. The reason why they regarded this measure as dangerous was that they had in recent years seen an immense growth of municipal enterprise all over the country. Millions of pounds had been spent upon municipal tramways, and if the capital which had been sunk was to be diminished in value in this way by private enterprise stepping in from outside, not only would corporations be deterred from providing municipal tramways, but the property which they now owned would be considerably diminished in value. The hon. Member opposite said that he thought it was unfair that the Newcastle Corporation should invade the Tyneside district and take the cream of the traffic. The case was just the opposite, because the company wished to invade the Newcastle district and take the cream of the traffic on the Newcastle lines owned by the corporation. He did not wish to go into the London analogy, because they could not judge the Newcastle case by anything which took place in London. He wished it to be observed that those who opposed running powers in London had on this occasion entirely changed their attitude, and they were now in favour of compulsory running powers in Tyneside. They were now adopting a new principle which they should apply in their own constituencies. The Newcastle Corporation urged that the district over which the Tyneside company wished to obtain running powers was an immensely crowded district in regard to cars, and he knew no tramway system in the world where a larger number of cars passed per hour than at certain points in this district.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid there were 6 per cent. more cars in Glasgow.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the Glasgow Corporation viewed the precedent that was being created with the gravest alarm. If even a small matter was imposed upon the Newcastle Corporation,

  253
  the effect might be to dislocate the most crowded part of their system. That was one of the reasons why they objected to terms being forced upon them which would not suit the system of Newcastle itself, and they urged that Newcastle should receive precedence over the Tyneside Company in the consideration of that House. They had to decide whether it was the Newcastle travelling public or the Tyneside travelling public whose interests ought to be most considered. He thought that Newcastle, with its immense population, should receive precedence over that of the Tyneside population, which was very much smaller, and the Tyneside Company carried a much smaller number of passengers. The view put forward by the supporters of this Bill had not been in the interests of the travelling public, but in the interests of large employers who owned large works in the Tyneside district. He thought they had a right to ask what were the views of the workpeople employed by those manufacturers in the Tyneside district? The workmen who used these cars had expressed the opinion that they did not believe that the Newcastle system should be disturbed simply for the benefit of this tramway company. He thought the views of these workmen ought to have considerable weight with the Members of this House. In this case the Committee had made a serious blunder, because they had allowed these compulsory powers to slip into the Bill without thinking that by so doing they would raise a storm in municipalities all over the country which they never anticipated, and which would certainly have made them think twice before passing such a proposal as this. He hoped the House would avoid this course by deciding to take these two clauses again into their consideration. After what had been said in the House upon this point he hoped hon. Members would of his proposal.
  MB. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that speaking with the experience of a former Chairman of the Liverpool Corporation Tramways, there was no difficulty whatever in an outside company obtaining reasonable powers to run through and right into the centre of a corporation
  254
  system. It was quite obvious that when these monopolies spread their network all over the country sooner or later the different systems must touch one another and come into contact, as they had come into contact in a great many places in the United Kingdom. In other places, however, the parties had generally been men of common sense, and mutual arrangements had been arrived at. The case which they had now got before the House was one where owing to some fault on one side or the other it had proved impossible to come to any reasonable arrangement. In had been said that a small outside company had no right to send its cars right down into the centre of a populous city, because such a thing would cause a great dislocation of the traffic. He thought that with regard to tramways the centre of Liverpool was probably as difficult to deal with as any other part of the kingdom. He was Lord Mayor of that city last year and he knew that arrangements, had been made by the corporation of Liverpool under which cars coming from Bolton and St. Helens passed right into the centre of Liverpool down to the pier head, and they had experienced no difficulty and no dislocation of traffic at all by this arrangement. He had seen the manager's report upon this arrangement, showing the time table, and the scheme was worked in the simplest manner. The method adopted was as follows:—As soon as a tram car belonging to one of the outside companies reached the Liverpool boundary the driver and conductor got off and the driver and conductor belonging to the municipality of Liverpool got on and took the car to the centre of Liverpool and brought it back again. Each side collected their own fares on their own lines upon their own responsibility and supplied their own power, and the corporation paid one penny a mile for the use of the car. Everybody was satisfied with the arrangement and the passengers had not to get down and change cars, and consequently justice was done all round. [An HON. MEMBER: Were those compulsory powers?] He could not understand why some simple and reasonable arrangement of that kind was not arrived at in this case. After examining the literature on the subject, he had come to the conclusion

  255
  that the corporation of Newcastle had absolutely refused on any terms to allow a car of the outside company to cross their boundaries. The outside company were thus bound to come to Parliament for compulsory powers, and the granting of them would not do any harm to the corporation of Newcastle, because the terms would be settled by the Board of Trade if the parties were unable to agree. He wished to add one word about the public convenience. When these monopolies were granted by Parliament they were always granted in the interests of the public, and it was the general public who had a right to be considered first. Wherever they had a break in a tramway system it practically meant a double terminus. The financial effect of a double terminus or a single terminus was that for half-a-mile of line up to the terminus that part did not pay, and the consequence was that in the case under consideration they had a mile of line at each of the three places where the routes met which would be useless and less valuable. He thought that this was clearly one of those cases in which the House ought to support the Committee, and although he had done much to help the municipalities to undertake tramways, he still thought it ought to be recognised that municipalities had no rights which private companies did not also possess. He should, on these grounds, support the Committee, and he trusted that in this matter the House would have regard to the interests of the general public and not yield to this Motion. He noticed that the name of Liverpool was down in the list of municipalities supposed to be supporting this Motion, but he did not believe that Liverpool had anything at all to say in support of this Motion.
  MR. HENDERSONsaid the hon. Member representing the Tyneside Division had endeavoured to make out that the application made by this company was supported by the workers in the Tyneside district. The various workers' organisations in the Tyneside district had communicated with him and they had specially urged him to do all that lay in his power to induce the Labour Members in the House of Commons to support the attitude which had been taken up by the
  256
  corporation of Newcastle upon this question. It had been stated that some 27,000 workers had declared themselves through various channels in favour of this company's proposal, but he did not think anything like that number, if appealed to, could be found to support this Bill. The various trade organisations in Newcastle, Tyneside, and Wallsend were against any such powers being granted to this company. The plea of the company was that they wanted to give the workpeople of Tyneside better facilities for travelling between Newcastle and their employment. He knew the district himself very well, for he had worked there, and he could tell the House that there were thousands of workmen, ratepayers in the city of Newcastle, who were unanimously in favour of the position taken up by the Newcastle Corporation, because they recognised that the corporation had taken in hand a vast property. They felt that any further facilities ought to be granted to the corporation and not to a private company which would enter into competition with the corporation in the management of its own trams. He was very much surprised to find that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had spoken with two voices. He began his speech by laying it down that the Government were going to be neutral, but he had not travelled very far when he, in the name of the Board of Trade, a Government Department, laid it down that they were going to support wholesale the proposals of the company. The hon. Gentleman went on to make a comparison between the Newcastle case and the case in which the hon. Member for Battersea took an interest, and which came before the House a few weeks ago. The case with which the hon. Member for Battersea was concerned was entirely different from that which the Secretary to the Board of Trade supported now in name of the Board of Trade. Surely there was a difference between the London County Council desiring to extend its own tramway system and trying to link up two parts of this great city, and the case of a corporation which was resisting a private company from the outside when seeking powers to enter a big city like Newcastle-on-Tyne. The analogy, he held, was a

  257
  most unfair one. But what struck him most of all when the hon. Gentleman was making that comparison was that the Gentlemen who cheered him on the present occasion were the same Gentlemen who opposed the hon. Gentleman for Battersea in the case which he had in hand on behalf of the ratepayers of London a few weeks ago. There was another point which was surprising to him. If the Secretary to the Board of Trade could come and make this pathetic appeal on behalf of the company's proposals this evening, where was he when his right hon. friend the Member for Battersea was trying to do such a great service for the millions of this great city? They had no pathetic appeal from him then on behalf of the London County Council. It appeared that it was only on behalf of a private company that the Board of Trade went out of its way to appeal to this House to go against the wishes of the people of the district. He hoped the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield would receive the approval of the House. At any rate, the Labour Members were determined to support the Corporation in this matter.
  SIR ROBERT HERMON-HODGEsaid it might be assumed that he had some particular personal knowledge of the matter before the House, because his name appeared on the Whip which had been issued in favour of the corporation of Newcastle-on-Tyne. He desired to say that his name appeared without his authority. He thought that was a very serious matter, which was worth mentioning to the House.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I had nothing whatever to do with that Whip, and I did not issue it
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid if he thought the hon. Member
  258
  for Barnard Castle was correct in his statement that the working classes in Tyneside were opposed to the tramway facilities being granted, which the company asked for under their Bill, he would certainly vote with him, but having represented the Tyneside Division during the last two Parliaments, and having some knowledge of the question, he took entirely a different view. Let the House realise that the riverside population had doubled in the past ten years, and from the point of view of meeting this increase and the prevention of overcrowding it was essential a linked system be formed between Wallsend and Newcastle. He, at any rate, was consistent in supporting a linked system between areas of population both in London and elsewhere, and he did not understand the view taken which would prevent the facilities being given which were locally required. Not only had the voice of the people been heard that day through their elected Parliamentary representative, but every member elected upon the Wallsend Corporation, the urban district council of Willington Quay, and the urban district of Gosforth had petitioned in favour of the Bill—only those Members had abstained who were shareholders in the company promoting the Bill. The House would therefore see that public opinion in Tyneside as represented by the local authorities was unanimously in favour of the company having running powers into Newcastle, and when they found that the corporation was not prepared to act in a reasonable spirit, there was no other course but to support the Bill.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid they had to deal here with a mixed question. If this were merely a local matter, he should support the action of the Committee. The company convinced the Committee of the House of Lords, and it obtained the unanimous Vote of the Committee of the House of Commons; but they had in this matter

  259
  a great contest being fought between municipal enterprise on the one hand and private enterprise on the other. [Cries of "No."] Well, he ventured to think so. They had also what always happened in such contests, namely, private enterprise getting the better. The question the House had to decide was whether they were prepared to establish a precedent that compulsory powers were to be given to a private company over a corporation. The Secretary to the Board of Trade got up and defended the application of the company without having taken the trouble to provide himself with information. He did not make that statement without being prepared to support it. He would ask the hon. Member now whether, before he made his speech, he had read the evidence given before the Commons Committee.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Every word of it.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the hon. Gentleman's second point was that as between private enterprise and municipal enterprise, once powers had been granted they ought to be treated equally. He denied that proposition altogether. Private enterprise and municipal enterprise did not stand on the same basis at all. Private companies thought only of
  the fares that would make the biggest dividends, and they were right in thinking so. Their business was run as a shop. But municipal enterprise took up a different point of view. They ran their enterprise, not for the purpose of earning profit, but for the purpose of serving the community. This was proved by the fact that in connection with many municipal corporations the charges were diminished when they were earning a large profit in order that they might give more facilities to the community they served. On that account private companies and municipal enterprise should be treated differently. The Newcastle Corporation seemed to have acted blindly in this matter. They ought to have said, "We will not have these compulsory powers at all," and they should have fought the proposal of the company on the Second Reading. Was the House now going to inflict on the whole of the municipal corporations of the country a great wrong? He hoped the House would take a broader view than the Committee had taken and would support the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for Huddersfield.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 142 ; Noes, 178. (Division List No. 186.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michacl Hicks

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood, James

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chapman, Edward

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bond, Edward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brassey, Albert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Delany, William

  Lawrence, William F. Liverpool

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Slack, John Bamford

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stock, James Henry

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Fielden, Edward Broeklehurst

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stoyan, John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fison, Frederick William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Taylor, Austen (East Toxteth)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Percy, Earl

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Pierpont, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers't E

  Price, Robert John

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Ed ward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  H. C. Smith and Mr. Gallo

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  way.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Dewar, John A. (Invrrness-sh)

  Henderson Arthur (Durham)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Bagot, Capt. Joscerine FitzRoy

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Jordon, Jeremiah

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Joyce, Michael

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bell, Richard

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

  Benn, John Williams

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bignold, Arthur

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lambert, George

  Boland, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lay land-Barratt, Francis

  Burns, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Leamy, Edmund

  Caldwell, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Cameron, Robert

  Gladstone, Rt Hon Herbert John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Causton, Richard Knight.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leng, Sir John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Levy, Maurice

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Grant, Corrie

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Guest, Hon. Iver Churchill

  Lough, Thomas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gurdon, Sir W, Brampton

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Lewis V (Rossendale

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Crean, Eugene

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Lundon, W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Crooks, William

  Harwood, George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon- Claude George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cullinan, J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  M'Fadden Edward

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Helme, Norval Watson

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  262

  263

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Redmond, John B. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Renwick, George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thornton, Percy M

  Moss, Samuel

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Rigg, Richard

  Tomkinson, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Toulmin, George

  Nolan, Joseph, (Louth, South)

  Roche, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Norman, Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tuff, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Valentia, Viscount

  O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) N.)

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Doherty, William

  Russell, T. W.

  Whitley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Parrott, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Shackleton, David James

  young, Samuel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Pym, C. Guy

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  James Woodhouse and Mr.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Spear, John Ward

  Plummer.

  Words added—
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to; Bill re-committed to the former Committee in respect of Clauses 15 and 16.

SUPPLY [15th ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE. DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1904–5

  CLASS I.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £69,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUcalled attention to the regulation under which the motor-car traffic
  264
  in Hyde Park was restricted to ten miles an hour, and asked the noble Lord the Member for Chorley whether that regulation had been made under the Motor-Car Act, 1903, or under the Parks Regulations Act, 1872. If it had been made under the 1903 Act, then, he contended, the regulation was illegal, inasmuch as the inquiry provided for in that Act had not been held.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the regulations which had been issued were not grammatical.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid that in the opinion of a very large number of people motor-cars were entirely out of place in Hyde Park.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
City of London (Central Criminal Court House) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly and committed.
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Bridlington Corporation Bill[H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Crystal Palace District Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.)
Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be considered to-morrow.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Preston Corporation Water Bill [H.L]; Shipley Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee. Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
Wishaw Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), an Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation Bill; North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill; Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Dundee, Broughty Ferry and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read, and discharged.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; London and India Docks Company Bill; Swindon Corporation Bill; Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill; Carlisle Corporation Bill; Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), M. Camden, E. Mayo, V. Hampden (chairman), L. Lovat, L. Lyveden; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Friday the 8th of July next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against

119
the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bill.
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. A message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room B. on Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock.
Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 129.)

PETITIONS.
  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions to be heard by Counsel against; of Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras; and Local Authorities and Companies owning Electricity Undertakings in Conference; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for the training of teachers and for the examination of students in training colleges.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3199. Austria-Hungary; No.3200. United States (New Orleans).
  TRANSVAAL (ORANGE RIVER COLONY).
  Correspondence relating to the finances of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
  Report of the Director to the Board of Governors and Guardians, for the year 1903.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (VENTILATION: COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by F. Scudder, Esq., F.I.E., on air tests in humid cotton-weaving sheds.

  MINT.
  Thirty-fourth Annual Report of the Deputy-Master and Comptroller of the Mint, 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Fifty-eighth Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, 1904.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1875.
  Order in Council of the 23rd June, 1904, appointing the Registrar of the Privy Council to be Registrar in ecclesiastical and maritime causes.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT, 1865.
  Order in Council of the 23rd June, 1904, authorising an increase of salary to the cashier and store officer at the Royal Hospital School, Greenwich.
  DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
  Order in Council of the 23rd June, 1904, defining the limits of the Dockyard Port of Dover.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Orders in Council of the 23rd June, 1904.—1. Amending the Order in Council of the 19th November, 1902, regulating the currency of Northern Nigeria; 2. Entitled the Somaliland Order in Council, 1904.
  COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
  Account of receipts and payments under the Act, during the year ended 31st March, 1904.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  The Eighty-second Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, for the year 1903–1904.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES POWERS ACT, 1864.
  Report, by the Board of Trade, on applications made during the year ended 30th June, 1904, under the Railway Companies' Powers Act, 1864, and of the

  121
  proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL [H.L.]
  All Petitions referred to the Select Committee, with leave to the Committee to hear parties interested, by themselves, their counsel, agents, and witnesses, so far as the Committee think fit. The evidence taken before the Select Committee from time to time to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 128).

  A PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, before the business begins I wish to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make a short personal explanation. On referring to the newspaper reports of what took place towards the end of the sitting on Tuesday I find a report of a speech by the Lord Chancellor which shows me that I had not heard his remarks upon that occasion. I am sorry to say that with advancing years I suffer somewhat from deafness, and I certainly did not hear what the noble and learned Lord said. I find that the rule which he laid down with regard to the authority of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House was perfectly in accordance with the view I ventured to take. I feel bound to offer this explanation in order to make it clear that that was the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Marquess has said what he has said, because, although I did not attribute to him any desire to mislead the House, his intervention on the occasion was calculated to mislead some of your Lordships as to what the true rule is. The rule is that the Speaker of the House of Lords, unlike the Speaker of the House of Commons, has no authority to decide what is out of order or what is not. That is for your Lordships to
  122
  decide. But the Lord Chancellor has the same authority that other Peers have to rise to order, and speaking generally, during the eighteen years I have occupied this position, I have never intervened in any other way. It is always an invidious task to call a noble Lord to order, but unless the Lord Chancellor takes notice of a breach of order nobody else would. One consequence of that is that I am afraid your Lordships' House is not an example of order. When I intervene I do not claim any right to decide a point of order, but only the right to call attention to it.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day or the Second Reading read.
  LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think the only excuse I need offer is that lives are still being unduly risked through the carriage of dangerous deck loads by British ships in the winter time. Previous representations of mine in this House on the subject have had no effect whatever in official quarters; therefore I am bringing forward this Bill so that we may have a clear issue before your Lordships' House. If I can, as I hope, furnish you with convincing proof that not one only, but very many of our seamen have found a watery grave through this practice of carrying these deck loads in the winter, then I have confidence in your Lordships giving my Bill your most earnest and sympathetic consideration.
  As the Memorandum of this Bill states, it is an offence against the law for any vessel to arrive between the last day of October and the 16th day of April at any port in the United Kingdom carrying a deck cargo; that is to say, anything more than deals, battens, or light wood goods not exceeding 3 feet above the deck. There is a certain amount of grim humour in the fact that so long as the vessel does not discharge her deck cargo it is quite open for her to pay a visit to our shores, come into our ports, and get coal or provisions. There is no fear of punishment until such time as

  123
  she lands a single log, when the machinery of the law is at once put in motion by the Board of Trade. To put it shortly, the law forbids as a dangerous practice the carriage of deck loads to the United Kingdom in winter, but our ships may carry them with impunity to the Continent. Therefore there is not a shadow of doubt that though the law says it is dangerous, the practice of carrying dangerous deck loads in the winter time goes on as merrily as ever. The only difference is that they are discharged on the Continent instead of in this country.
  This Bill aims at consistency in the law and involves no difference in point of principle to the statute as it stands at present. In view of the evidence in specific cases I shall adduce, I will not dwell on the serious and unjustifiable risks which our sailors are expected to undertake. If your Lordships have ever observed the condition of vessels arriving at our large seaports with deck cargoes, even in summer time, you will the more fully appreciate the plight of such vessels lumbering across the Atlantic in winter with an enormous incubus above deck which, if breaking loose, will carry everything before it. It is a menace to all concerned. I now propose to deal with the disaster and misery which have arisen out of this practice of carrying dangerous deck leads in the winter time.
  As I have never met with anything else, I suppose I must take it as a matter of course that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade will offer determined opposition to the Bill. My noble friend representing the Board will, I have no doubt, go as usual into percentages as to loss of life, but I would exhort your Lordships not to attach too much weight to statistics submitted in this form, for they are calculated to be most misleading. If, for instance, 100 ships carried deck cargoes across the North Atlantic, and it was proved that the deck cargo was the cause of the loss of one vessel, only, with her crew, then the proportion of disaster would be 1 per cent. only. This would appear to be a most insignificant proportion, but, I ask, what about the crew of thirty-five or forty men who have perished through being subjected to unjustifiable risks? Are they not worthy of consideration? Are their lives of no
  124
  value? If one life, only, is thrown away from a preventable cause, then I contend that, if it cannot be prevented otherwise, the Legislature must step in. We do not wait for a terrible catastrophe on our railways before sanctioning measures to avoid danger. One single instance of loss of life furnishes amply sufficient basis for taking precautions for the avoidance of further sacrifice.
  I will now deal with the facts concerning this loss of life which the Bill seeks to put an end to. The ss. "Mobile" was lost with all hands, and it is noteworthy that on the eve of this vessel's sailing from the United States the second officer communicated with his relatives, fearing the consequence of the ship being in such a dangerous condition owing to the huge deck cargo she was carrying. It is also worthy of note that the Merchant Service Guild forwarded copies of these letters to the Board of Trade at the time. The Board of Trade Inquiry—which is a Court constituted under the Merchant Shipping Act, having the advantage of the assistance of two expert nautical assessors—found that owing to her deck load the vessel was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition. Twenty-six men lost their lives through this disaster. Somewhere about the same time the steamer "Huddersfield" experienced an accident, her deck cargo carrying adrift, and she was placed in a very perilous situation. Some of her crew were seriously injured. The Board of Trade Inquiry which was ordered to investigate the circumstances declared that—
  "This vessel also was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition."
  I might mention that the deck cargoes in both cases were being carried in the winter time to Continental ports. The "Mobile's" deck load of timber was estimated at being not less than 700 tons weight.
  Then again there was the loss of the ss. "Cardinal," proceeding in winter time with a deck cargo. The Board of Trade Inquiry ordered to investigate the circumstances found that the loss of this vessel was caused by the deck cargo being washed overboard by heavy seas, carrying away her bulwarks and steering gear, and

  125
  staving in the after hatches, thus rendering the vessel unmanageable and water-logged. The Court, in giving judgment, said that—
  "Although the Merchant Shipping Act does not apply to a vessel like the 'Cardinal' bound to a Continental port in the winter time, still, having regard to the weight of the deck cargo carried and to the length and size of the great proportion of the pitch-pine logs of which it consisted, the Court is of opinion that the vessel, as laden, was not in a good and seaworthy condition when she left Pensacola on a winter voyage across the North Atlantic."
  It was the opinion of the Court that the vessel was rendered unmanageable and lost by the weight and size of her deck cargo. Then, again, the report of the Board of Trade Inquiry which investigated the circumstances of the accident to the steamer "Firth of Forth" contains instructive reading on this matter of the carriage of deck loads. I do not wish to infer for one moment that the particular accident—a stranding—which was inquired into was caused by the deck load which she was carrying from the United States to the Continent; but, as furnishing proof of the statements contained in the Memorandum to the Bill, I may say that the annexe to the report of the Board of Trade Inquiry into this matter states that previous to the stranding of the vessel I have mentioned she had a list which increased considerably until she was almost on her beam ends. After a consultation with the chief officer, the master decided to cut the lashings and sacrifice the deck cargo. This is a performance much more difficult than might be imagined, and I have no hesitation in saying that if it had not been attended by good fortune the ship herself would have been sacrificed, and in all probability her crew as well.
  Then comes the case of the loss of the "Blenheim," under the management of Messrs. Steel, Young & Co. of London. A Board of Trade Inquiry was ordered, and after hearing all the evidence, formulated their judgment. They found that the vessel met with heavy weather and consequently the deck load shifted, causing a great list to starboard and the vessel to ship large quantities of water. The Court stated that the cause of the deck load breaking adrift and the vessel taking a list to starboard was that she listed heavily and was struck by a heavy sea
  126
  on the port side. Great damage was sustained by the vessel then and thereafter, and the Court stated that although they would have been of practically no assistance, no fewer than three of the deck pumps were inaccessible in consequence of the deck timber being stowed over them. They sail that this disaster showed the wisdom of the statutory regulation that—
  "Vessels shall not carry deck loads of timber to discharge at ports in the United Kingdom in winter."
  I would supplement this by the remark that this disaster shows the desirability of your Lordships giving your favourable consideration to this measure, which would prevent such vessels carrying deck-loads to the Continent.
  The latest glaring case to which it is my painful duty to draw your Lordships' attention is the loss of the steamer "Salopia" together with her crew—twenty-two men all told. It is a very extraordinary thing that this vessel belonged to the same owners as the steamer "Blenheim," the loss of which I have already commented upon. I desire, however, to be perfectly fair in this matter and to say that the Board of Trade Inquiry added that the managing owner of this latter vessel—the "Salopia"—on signing the charter party of the vessel was not aware of the loss of the "Blenheim." It appears that he has declared he is determined not to carry winter deck cargoes in vessels of this class, but the Court very tersely stated that this does not seem to go far enough. I would ask your Lordships to support me in preventing other ship-owners from carrying such deck cargoes, so that this particular owner may not have to meet with what he would consider as unfair competition. From the judgment of the Board of Trade Inquiry it appears that this missing steamer "Salopia" carried on deck no fewer than 585 logs. The Court highly disapproved of carrying a deck load during the winter months, stating that at this period of the year no deck load ought to be carried, and there is no beating about the bush in a plain statement of this character.
  Your Lordships have heard on several different occasions when I have brought

  127
  shipping matters forward replies by the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade in this House to the effect that the master of a ship must be allowed discretion in these matters. To those who know anything about the methods of present-day merchant ships this so-called discretion of the shipmaster is a hollow mockery. He is governed by custom and by the orders of his owners. If he does not load the full amount which the custom of the port indicates then on arrival home he is displaced by another master, but for obvious reasons the cause is not assigned. Shipmasters are therefore "between the devil and the deep sea." Their living must be their first consideration; therefore, in their anxiety to retain their positions, they carry full deck loads which, according to the disasters I have mentioned, constitute their vessels as unseaworthy and unfit for sea.
  In furnishing your Lordships with independent proof of my statement on this point of "discretion," I will mention evidence which came out at three different Board of Trade Inquiries. In the case of the steamer "Cardinal" the owners wrote the captain that they desired him to carry as much as he could, safely and legally. It would have been all well and good if the owners had ended with this, but they proceeded to inform the master that if he went to the Continent they thought he was entitled to carry a larger quantity than to the United Kingdom; and if he was not acquainted with the custom in such cases he could procure authentic information at Pensacola where timber carrying is a speciality. In the face of such instruction and of the recognised custom, it is obvious that the master had no alternative but to carry a dangerous deck cargo. In the case of the loss of the "Blenheim," the owners wrote to the captain to say that the home market was simply in a desperate condition and they feared the present voyage was going to be a very poor one, but they relied upon him doing his best to prevent a loss and hoped that a good cargo would be shipped. They pointed out that of course he would be allowed to carry a full deck load for the Continent compatible with the steamer's seaworthiness, and they trusted he would take full ad-
  128
  vantage of this liberty. Of course such instructions leave a loophole for escaping responsibility for the shipowners, but here again your Lordships will judge as to what discretion the master really had. He had absolutely none.
  At the recent inquiry into the loss or the "Salopia" with all hands, the owners stated candidly that they expected the captain to take a deck cargo, but they left it to him to load her compatible with her sea worthiness. One of the nautical assessors on the Court, in reply to this statement, said that the captain depended upon the owners, and would carry perhaps a little more rather than incur their displeasure. The assessor pointed out that it was no more safe to carry deck cargoes to a foreign port than it was to an English port. I think I have adduced sufficient authority for saying that, although pains and penalties are visited upon the master, he has no discretion left to him in avoiding them.
  I do not desire to trespass unduly on your Lordships' forbearance, and consequently I will not deal with the many letters received from shipmasters and officers appealing to me to help them in this matter by bringing it before your Lordships. I would wish to impress upon your Lordships the fact of their deplorable position in this matter. Their bread-and-butter must be their first consideration. If they do not follow the recognised custom they lose their positions on arrival home. Therefore I say that it is a grievance that demands remedy. Though they have no option as to carrying deck loads, they are yet held chiefly responsible. The Merchant Service Guild, which represents eleven thousand certificated captains and officers of merchant ships, has urged me to bring this subject before your Lordships, and to state how strongly they feel on this matter. The facts they have placed in my hands are such as no man possessing an atom of feeling can disregard. It is the captains and officers of our merchant navy upon whose practical experience we must rely in preventing undue risks to life on the high seas. If, as in this case, they emphatically condemn the carrying of deck cargoes in the winter time, your Lordships cannot but attach considerable weight to their representations—backed

  129
  up as they have been by decisions, such as I have quoted, of legal Courts which have fully investigated certain disasters at sea caused by deck cargoes.
  If, as I have foreshadowed, my noble friend representing the Board of Trade opposes the Bill, it is practically a certainty that the fine old crusted argument of foreign competition will be urged. Where this competition is at the expense of the lives of our seafaring fellow-subjects it is a question to be dealt with by the State. It seems to me an extraordinary argument that if foreign ships are allowed to proceed to sea in an I nnseaworthy condition, then it should— on the score of "competition"—be permissible for British ships to do likewise. The Board of Trade and the shipowners seem to be the only people who can convince the Legislature that "two blacks make a white." I always thought that Great Britain led the way in promoting safety of life at sea. Nowadays the tendency is to wait for the foreigner to make the first move. Norway is, I think, our only competitor to be considered seriously in the carriage of deck cargoes. I may inform your Lordships that the Norwegian Government have now adopted a measure stipulating that vessels carrying wood on deck must hold a surveyor's certificate as to their fitness to do so, and that the deck load must be so stowed as not to impede navigation or prevent free access to boats and other life-saving appliances. Norway, your Lordships will see, is quite impressed by the dangers of such cargoes.
  Should your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will of course be open to Amendment in Committee. I implore your Lordships not to disregard, not my own views, but those of independent and impartial authorities on a cause of deplorable loss of life at sea. The fact that they have no direct means of representation in the Legislature should cause their claims to appeal to us all the more. Full of toil, care, responsibility, and risk, their lives are as precious to their parents, their wives, and their families as they should be to their country. I ask, then, that these lives should not be unduly jeopardised, and that dangers altogether outside the category of ordinary perils of
  130
  the sea may be the subject of your Lordships' most earnest consideration.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Muskerry.)
  LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, although His Majesty's Government are not prepared to grant a Second Reading to this Bill, I think I may congratulate my noble friend on the very able and moderate manner in which he has brought this subject to your Lordships' notice. I think it would be as well if I read to your Lordships Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which deals with the loading of timber. It runs as follows—
  "If a ship, British or foreign, arrives between the last day of October and the 16th day of April in any year at any port in the United Kingdom from any port out of the United Kingdom, carrying as deck cargo, that is to say, in any uncovered space upon deck, or in any covered space not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's registered tonnage, any wood goods as hereinafter denned, the master of that ship, and also the owner, if he is privy to the offence, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £5 for every hundred cubic feet of wood goods carried in contravention of this section."
  And then there is a proviso—
  "Nothing in this section shall affect any ship not bound to a port in the United Kingdom which comes into any port of the United Kingdom under stress of weather, or for repairs, or for any other purpose than the delivery of her cargo."
  That, my Lords, is the existing law, and I can assure your Lordships that this section is vigorously enforced by the Board of Trade. During the years 1901 and 1902, there were convictions of twenty-two vessels for contravening this section, seventeen of which were foreign vessels.
  As far as I can make out from the Bill and from the speech of my noble friend, he is desirous of including all British ships starting from a foreign port, and whose cargoes are consigned to foreign ports. That is the scope, I think, of his Bill. The noble Lord has mentioned in support of his proposal many cases where we regret there has been loss of life, and others in which the ship has foundered, but in which there has been no loss of life. I have particulars of all the cases he referred to, with the exception of that of the "Cardinal,"

  131
  and I find that the cause of their loss is not attributed altogether by the Commisioners who inquired into the cases to their carrying deck cargoes. In the case of the "Mobile," which the noble Lord mentioned first, the Court found that the vessel had insufficient stability, but, as she was chiefly laden with grain or cotton, she is not included in the table of timber-laden vessels foundered and missing. The next case to which the noble Lord referred was that of the "Huddersfield." In the case of this vessel the Court found that the casualty was due to the excessive height of the deck cargo. With regard to the "Salopia," the Court found that apart from the vessel carrying a deck load she was not unseaworthy, and they expressed the opinion that no deck load should be carried in winter months across the Atlantic.
  I think I can show your Lordships by quoting the figures on this subject, that there has been a great diminution in the number of vessels lost from this cause. The number of lives lost in foundered timber-laden ships during the last four and a half years was seventy-three, as against 327 in the previous four and a half years. As regards the trade between foreign ports, the number of vessels foundered and missing was eleven, and the number of lives lost fifty-five, during the past four and a half years; as against nineteen vessels, and 125 lives lost, in the preceding four and a half years. This very large diminution is chiefly due, I think, to the employment in this trade of steamers, which have largely taken the place of sailing vessels. In the figures I have quoted, I have not included the twenty-six lives lost in the "Mobile," for the reason I have given.
  I now come to the question of foreign competition. As your Lordships are aware, foreign competition in the seafaring world is very keen, and if your Lordships grant a Second Reading to this Bill you will be doing a thing that you have never assented to before—you will be placing restrictions on British ships which you are unable to impose on ships of foreign nations. I admit that if we could get all foreign nations to adopt Section 451 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it would be extremely desir-
  132
  able, but before that could be done we should have to approach those Powers on the subject. The noble Lord made, I think, a rather strong attack on shipowners. I am not able, I must admit, to follow the noble Lord into that question, but I cannot help saying that in my opinion the general body of shipowners in England are only too anxious to do what they can for the safety and comfort of the men who go to sea in their vessels. I regret that His Majesty's Government are unable to consent to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I have no intention whatever of entering into the technical details of this Bill, but when I hear competition alleged as a reason why it should not be read a second time my memory goes back to the great and prolonged debates in the House of Commons on the subject of factory legislation. The great argument of Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden, and even of Sir Robert Peel, against the passing of the Ten Hours Bill was that it would subject English manufacturers to unjust competition with their foreign competitors. That was the ground of the great resistance made to those remedial measures of that time, and it seems to me that the argument of the noble Lord in opposition to this Bill is based upon precisely the same ground—the dread of foreign competition. Well, we faced it in the case to which I have referred and we conquered, and I see no reason why we should not face it and conquer in the present instance.
  THE EARL OF TANKERVILLE THE EARL OF TANKERVILLE: My Lords, I think we ought to look at this Bill from quite a different standpoint from that from which the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade appears to regard it. Shipmasters are practically forced to take these deck loads, otherwise they lose their positions; and the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has quoted the case of an officer writing home before starting on the voyage, expressing his fear that he would not reach the other side. The case of the Spanish ship "Vesper" has not been alluded to this afternoon. That case was tried last Friday, and resulted in judgment for £40 and costs. The

  133
  offence took place on April 6th, and that vessel since that time has made two round trips. One would like to know why the Board of Trade pat off trying that case for so long, and whether they proceeded with it because this Bill was coming up. I think, my Lords, the case of the poor man who risks his life on our merchant ships should be listened to, the more so as he is a man who has served his country well. We employed, I believe, 600 ships of the mercantile marine during the Boer War. They carried 1,250,000 tons of food, not including forage; they carried many thousands of horses and mules, and 500,000 men without the loss of a single life. Not only have they served us well in the past, but the officers and men of the merchant service will be the men who, in the event of war, will be drawn upon for the Naval Reserve. Surely, there for, it is worth the country's while to pay some attention to the appeal which these men now put forward to have their case considered from the point of view of the seaman rather than from that of the owner, whose only fear is for his pocket.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I desire to say one word only with reference to what fell from the noble Duke behind me. I did not understand my noble friend who represents the Board of Trade to argue that this Bill should be refused a Second Beading merely because it had the effect of imposing restrictions upon British shipping which did not apply to the shipping of foreign nations. Where the safety of human beings or, indeed, where the welfare of human beings, is at issue, I conceive that we should never shrink from taking the precautions which humanity demands merely because the effect of those precautions would be to throw some disability or disadvantage upon the persons upon whom we impose them. But what I did understand my noble friend to suggest was this, that the number of casualties arising from the careless use of these deck loads was showing a steady and satisfactory diminution, and, that being the case, and as there are already under the existing law restrictions applicable to British and foreign ships
  134
  alike, which are, we believe, operating in a satisfactory manner, my noble friend suggested that it was desirable not to impose a new restriction which would certainly operate exclusively in regard to British shipping, and therefore place the shipping interest, which is, as we all know, competing with great difficulty against the shipping of other countries, at a fresh disadvantage. That, I think, is the argument upon which we relied, and I hope that the noble Duke will not suspect us of being at all callous in the matter of risk of life and safety at sea.
  LORD KELVIN*LORD KELVIN: My Lords, I think existing legislation is ample proof that our Legislature cannot be accused of callousness in respect to safety of life at sea. We are doing at present not quite all, but nearly all we can in respect to deck cargoes. We allow no ship, British or foreign, to come into a British port with a deck load of wood during the times for which such a cargo is judged inadmissible in respect to safety. We have power over ships coming into our ports, whether they are foreign ships or British ships, and we use that power against both alike. We have power over British ships over the whole sea. We have power over ships loading under the British flag in foreign ports, and it seems to me it would be only consistent with the principles upon which the existing beneficent legislation is founded, that we should not allow British ships—ships under our own control—to take a dangerous deck load during the winter months. To put a deck load on a ship in an American port which has to cross, the Atlantic is to court danger. It seems to me that we are bound by the very principles of our present legislation to adopt the provisions of the Bill now before your Lordships' House, and not allow British ships under any circumstances whatever to ship a dangerous deck cargo during the winter months. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. I hope the Government and the Board of Trade will see that it introduces no condition whatever that is inconvenient or unfair to British shipowners, unless we are to regard all British legislation unfair which, whether it affects shipowners or manufacturers, places upon British subjects liabilities that foreigners

  135
  are not subject, to. I trust that the Board of Trade will see their way to accept the Bill and allow it to be read a second time.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS*THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on this Bill. I have been asked by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee to do my best to oppose it, but, happily, the Government have not seen their way to accept it, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will not give it a Second Reading. We all feel that it is desirable that risks should be removed as far as possible, but there is another consideration, namely, the question of the trade of the country; and, in the opinion of the shipowners, if this Bill passes, the timber-carrying trade will be absolutely taken away from this country and go into foreign hands. I cannot conceive a greater misfortune to those whom you wish now to benefit by this Bill than that so important a trade as the timber trade should go into foreign hands. I called attention when the fiscal question was under discussion to the fact that the high figure of British freights was very largely due to what foreigners are free from, namely, well-intentioned, but what I think in many cases is short-sighted interference with those who carry on this trade. I remember that at one time something was proposed by the Board of Trade which the shipowners of this country considered so fatal to their interests that they went to the Board of Trade and told them simply this, that if such a measure was passed they would remove their ships from the British flag and place them under the Norwegian or Spanish or other foreign flag. Therefore, in these matters it it is all very well to give way to one's natural feelings, but there are more serious considerations, and very often when you are trying to do goad it turns out to be short-sighted philanthropy, for you do more harm to those you are intending to benefit than good. I hope the Second Reading of the Bill will not be agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, it is not often my good fortune to agree with the noble Earl who has
  136
  just sat down on questions of this sort. Naturally, I should be altogether inclined to sympathise with the object of the Bill which has been brought in by Lord Muskerry. I think its objects are good, and if it were not that it is undesirable to take the steps which he advocates until you have exhausted all other means of arriving at a satisfactory solution of this question, I should have been very much tempted to vote with him. But it does appear to me that it is very desirable, before you adopt a measure of this kind, which might seriously affect British shipping interests, that you should exhaust every effort in your power to induce foreign nations to come into this arrangement. I have soma reason for thinking that there is not altogether unwillingness on the part of foreign countries to adopt our principle of legislation, and I cannot vote for the Second Reading of this Bill until the noble Marquess opposite has had the fullest opportunity of inducing foreign countries to adopt our principle in this respect.
  LORD MUSKERRY LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, with regard to what has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, I would like to call attention to the fact that the winter is now coming on and that while we are waiting, before adopting preventative measures, for other countries to come into line we are unjustifiably risking a number of lives. When the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs rose, I was overjoyed to hear his first few sentences, for I made sure he was going to support my Bill. The noble Marquess said we should take every care for the safety of life irrespective of anything else. The effect of his observations was that the first object should be the safety and the welfare of seamen. I would point out that this Bill does not alter the existing law except in this one respect—the law says now that it is; dangerous to carry these cargoes to England, forbids their being carried, and provides a punishment for infringement, and all that Parliament is asked is to extend this to British vessels I going from a foreign port to a port on the Continent. Is not that perfectly consistent? You say that here is a practice which is dangerous, and yet you I allow it in cases where the vessel is bound

  137
  for the Continent. I am compelled to press the Bill to a Second Reading.

  CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Powis, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Romney, E.

  James, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Kelvin, L

  Craven, E.

  Lyveden, L. [Teller.]

  Dartrey, E.

  Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam)

  Muskerry, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carrington, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  (L. President.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Mansfield, E.

  Killanin, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Portland, D.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Hutchinson, V(E. Donoughmore)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Ripon, M.

  Balfour, L.

  Wolverton, L.

OPEN SPACES BILL [H.L.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPWG BILL [H.L.]
    RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a To-morrow.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
    Report from the Committee of Select on, That the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—E. Mansfield, L. Kintore (E. Kintore); agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.