Sitting of 22 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Felixstowe Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; Kettering Improvement Bill; Norwich Water Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Bexhill Water and Gas Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Sutton Gas

379
Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Farnborough) Provisional Order Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 7 and 9 be struck out of the Bill; that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 3 and 5 be struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the Warmley Rural District Council be proved before the Committee on the Bill; that the powers to construct Tramway No. 4 be struck out of the Bill, unless proof be given before the Examiner that the consents of the local and road authorities have been obtained, and that the Standing Orders applicable to that tramway in other respects have been complied with:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Ipswich Dock Commissioners to construct certain works in connection with their docks;
380
to make a tramway and tramroad; to raise additional money; and for other purposes." [Ipswich Dock Commission Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the powers of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board with respect to the levying of rates." [Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of certain railways by the Barry Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Barry Railway (Extension of Time, etc.) Bill [Lords.]
Ipswich Dock Commission Bill [Lords]; Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [Lords]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]; Barry Railway (Extension of Time, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCE HOLDERS.
  Petition from Southampton, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Fulbourne; Enfield Highway; Salford; Chelsea; London (two); Chorley; Standish; Astley Bridge; Dundee; Winchester; Sunderland; Bolton (four); Burnley; Leicester; Stockport; Bredbury; Cwmtwrch; Taunton; Shrewsbury; Farnworth (two); Bo'ness; Gwersyllt and Rhosrobin; Coedpoeth (two); Rhosymedre; Johnston; Ruabon; Bryn Eglwys; Horsham; Rhos; Holyhead (two); Cemaes; Carnforth; Adwy's Clawd; Gareglefn; Peterhead (two); Lewes; Liverpool; Todmorden; Redruth; Hebden Bridge; Crawley; Llangristiolus; Failsworth; Tulse Hill; Burnbank Hamilton; and Cardiff; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Wellingborough (two); and Bolton; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petitions for withdrawal; from Farnworth (two); and Scarborough; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FOREIGN MINISTRIES OF COMMERCE (COMMERCIAL, No. 3, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Reports on the Constitution and Functions of Ministries of Commerce or Analogous Branches of Foreign Administrations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3128 to 3130 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
  Copy ordered, "of Statements for each month of the year 1904 of the number of Paupers relieved in England and Wales (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 41, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 108.]

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "in respect of Labourers' Cottages in Ireland, showing: (1) County; (2) Rural District; (3) Valuation of Rural District; (4) Number of Labourers' Cottages (a) built, (b) in course of construction; (5) Amount of Loans (a) sanctioned, (b) received; (6) Amount required to be raised annually in repayment of Loans sanctioned; (7) Amount which would be raised by the maximum rate of one shilling in the pound allowed for purposes of Acts; (8) Rate per pound required to raise amount specified in Column 6; (9) Present poundage rate levied on Rural District for Labourers' Acts purposes;
  382
  (10) Amount of Exchequer Contribution for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1904; (11) Amount of rent received from tenants of cottages and plots during year; (12) Unissued balance, if any, of County's share of Exchequer Contribution; (13) Totals per County and Province, and for all Ireland; (14) The Return to be made up to the 31st day of March, 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 198, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. O'Shauqhnessy.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Sinking of Kish Bank Lightship.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the day and hour on which the Kish Bank lightship was sunk; the day and hour on which a relief vessel was placed on the station; the cause of the delay, if any, in so doing; and the reason why the Board of Trade have not held an inquiry into the circumstances of the sinking of the ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the lightship on the Kish Bank was sunk on the 8th September, 1902, at 5 p.m., and was replaced by another in the afternoon of the following day, the light being exhibited that night. There was no avoidable delay. It is not usual to institute a formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act in a case likely to be heard in the Admiralty Court, and the Board of Trade were not prepared to incur the expense of detaining witnesses for inquiry until the end of the protracted negotiations, which resulted in an admission of liability on the part of the owners of the vessel which ran into the lightship.

  Loss of Fittings for the Fastnet Lighthouse.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that on or about the 21st October, 1903, a large quantity of fittings for the construction of the lighting gear of the Fastnet lighthouse was washed off the rock, he will

  383
  state the condition of the weather at the time the gear was landed from the "Ierne"; whether he is aware that immediately it was landed the "Ierne" left the rock, before the gear had been put into a safe position; and will he state who is responsible for the loss, what was the value of the fittings lost, and how long will the establishment of the new light be delayed in consequence.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the weather was fine and the sea smooth when the gear was landed; that the "Ierne" immediately returned to Crook Haven, the placing of the gear into a safe position being carried out by the workmen on the rock; that the loss was entirely due to the very sudden and unexpected change in the weather; that the cost of replacing the fittings will be about £200; and that it is hoped that, given fine weather, the new light will be exhibited during the ensuing summer.

  Irish Lights Steamer "Princess Alexandra."
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Lights steamer "Princess Alexandra" has been condemned; and, if so, what is to be done with her; whether her crew is retained on pay; and if so, what duties are they performing; and what are the number and ratings of those on leave.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the "Princess Alexandra" has been condemned and publicly offered for sale; that her crew continue to receive their regular wages and allowances; that, with the exception of the second officer, who has been granted a month's leave, they are all engaged on active duties, the commander and many of the crew being on board the s.s. "Ierne" which is delivering stores off the north coast of Ireland, while the remainder, with the exception of the second engineer (who is watching the construction and placing of the twin screw engines in the new vessel), are taking down and packing up certain fittings and stores which are to be transferred
  384
  from the "Princess Alexandra" to the new vessel, after which their services will be utilised as far as possible on board the s.s. "Tearaght" during her coast work, in place of shipping temporary hands.

  Prices of Coal and Oil Purchased by Trinity House.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the contract prices for coal and oil purchased by Trinity House and delivered at their store depôts during the last year dealt with in the accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am indebted to the courtesy of the Trinity House for the information enabling me to give replies to this and my hon. friend's two other Questions affecting them. At the nine depôts where coal was delivered the average prices for the year ended 30th June, 1903, were: for house coals 20s. 0½d. per ton, for steam coals 20s. 7d. per ton. As regards oil the côntract prices for the year ended 31st March, 1903, were: for heavy mineral oil (average of three depôts) 6¼d. per gallon, for paraffin oil 5¾d. per gallon.

  Cost of Maintenance of Sirens at the Nash and Penlee Point.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the annual cost of maintaining the fog siren at the Nash and the reed horn signal at Penlee Point respectively, exclusive of wages.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed that the Nash fog signal was only established in December last, and the annual cost of maintenance must of course depend on the number of hours of fog experienced. This cost is estimated at about £86. The annual expenditure on the Penlee Point fog signal for the twelve months ended 30th September last was £108.

  Cost of Maintenance of Dowsing and Breaksea Lightships and St. Catherine's and Pendeen Lights.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the annual cost of maintenance of the Outer Dowsing, Inner

  385
  Dowsing, and Breaksea lightships, also of St. Catherine's (electric) and Pendeen; (oil) lights and sirens respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed that the average cost of maintenance at the—

  £

  Outer Dowsing (with a siren fog signal) is

  1,431

  Inner Dowsing (with a hand horn only) is

  1,243

  Breaksea (with a reed horn fog signal) is

  1,363

  St. Catherine's, electric light

  £1,075

  St. Catherine's, electric light fog signal

  112

  1,187

  Pendeen, oil light

  £504

  Pendeen, fog signal

  87

  591

  In the case of the three first named the average is based on seven years' expenditure, in the other two on three years' expenditure, and the figures in these two cases include the wages for the whole station and the cost of upkeep of the buildings.

  Sale of Adulterated Whisky.
  MR. J. E. GORDON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government propose to take action as regards the sale of whisky, now described as Scotch, malt, and Highland whisky, but which is the product either of German spirit, or of maize, rice, and molasses.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) If a complaint that a breach of the Merchandise Marks Act has been committed in a specific case is submitted tome in accordance with the regulations made under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, I will give it my careful consideration.

  Royal College of Science—Scholars in Receipt of Aid from Local Education Authorities.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state what is the percentage of National scholars now in
  386
  attendance at the Royal College of Science who are in receipt of extra aid in the form of scholarships or grants from local education authorities.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Since 1902 only one case has arisen in which a National scholar in the Royal College of Science has requested the Board's permission to hold his National scholarship conjointly with a scholarship or grant from a local education authority. In this case permission was given by the Board.

  Postal Service between London and Paris.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of deliveries daily of letters in London from Paris and vice versâ, with the hours of such deliveries in both towns.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Letters received in the daily mails from Paris fall into four different deliveries in the City district of London, namely, those commencing at 7.20 a.m., 8.30 a.m., 6.20 p.m., and 8.30 p.m., and in the other London districts into three deliveries, which may be said to commence at 7 a.m., 10.15 a.m., and 5.40 p.m. It is understood that in Paris letters from London are distributed by three deliveries, commencing at 7.10 a.m., 5.45 p.m., and 7.40 p.m.

  Supply of Regulation Waistcoats for Belfast Post Office Adult Messengers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why the adult messengers in Belfast and other towns are not supplied with the regulation waistcoats similar to postmen; and whether, in view of the night duty performed by these messengers, he will consider the advisability of extending the supply to them.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have looked into this matter, and I have decided to make the supply of uniforms to adult night messengers the same as that for winter wear to postmen and on the same conditions.

  Halfpenny Post—Extension of Privileges.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will extend the privilege of halfpenny postage at present applicable to orders for, and invoices of, goods, to requests for quotations sent in open envelopes on printed forms with only the necessary details written.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am sorry that I do not see my way to admitting to the privilege of the halfpenny post the documents to which the hon. Member refers. The question of extending the halfpenny post to include quotation forms and similar documents was very carefully considered before the recent revision of the regulations was sanctioned, and I am not prepared now to reconsider the decision against their inclusion.

  Customs Service—Compensation for Retardation of Promotion.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the date at which the retardation of those examining officers of Customs commenced who received compensation under General Order 15, 1904; whether any officers suffered retardation at or about the same time who have not yet been compensated; whether he can also state the number of officers of over twenty years service who have not yet received compensation; and can he state when their claims will be recognised under the terms of General Order 78. 1S02, and the Board Minute of the 3rd December, 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Board of Customs consider that the retardation of the examining officers commenced with the introduction of the new warehousing system in 1882, and accordingly 280 officers who had completed twenty years service by 1st September, 1902, were compensated, and, subsequently by General Order 15, 1904, forty-four others who completed a like service on 31st December, 1902. There remain some seventy-three officers of over twenty years service who have not yet received compensation, and their case is receiving the careful consideration of the Board.

  Excise Revenue, Estate Duty, and Income Tax in the Dublin Collection.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what was the amount of Excise Revenue, of Estate Duty, and of Income-Tax paid in the Dublin collection in the year ended 31st December, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The figures for the calendar year cannot be given, but during the financical year ended 31st March, 1903, the amounts were as follows: Excise Revenue, £1,879,905; Estate, etc., Duties, £475,172; Income-Tax, £448,351.

  Quarantine for Imported Dogs.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture will reduce the six months' quarantine of dogs from abroad to three months and, if so, when such order will take effect; and whether he can state how many dogs were quarantined in 1903; and whether the Board has any reason to believe that any of them have since shown signs of rabies.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) It is already the practice of the Board to release an imported dog after three months quarantine in cases where the dog has been under the direct personal control of its owner during the three months preceding its importation. It would be dangerous to extend this relaxation to eases where such supervision was wanting. 367 dogs were landed from abroad in. 1903 and detained under quarantine. In none of these have any signs of rabies been detected.

  Sinking of a Submarine—Grants to Widows.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS:To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he mil state what grants will be made to the widows of the men who perished in the recent naval disaster at Portsmouth, and in what

  389
  proportions the moneys so allotted will be derived from the Greenwich Hospital Fund and Imperial funds respectively.

  Rating.

  Widow's Pension per week.

  Allowance for each child dependent on the mother, per week.

  From the Funds of Greenwich Hospital.

  Supplementary Pension from Naval Funds.

  Total.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  (1) Able seamen and stokers

  3

  6

  1

  6

  5

  0

  1

  6

  (2) Second class petty officers

  4

  0

  2

  0

  6

  0

  1

  6

  (3) First class petty officers

  4

  6

  3

  0

  7

  6

  2

  0

  (4) Chief petty officers

  5

  0

  4

  0

  9

  0

  2

  0

  Tibet Mission—Expenditure in Great Britain.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether there has been any expenditure in Great Britain on military or other stores or material for use in, or on account of, the expedition in Tibet beyond the external frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions since the commencement of Colonel Young-husband's advance through Sikkim; and whether copies of accounts, with vouchers for such expenditure approved or disapproved by the auditor appointed under Section 52 of the Government of India Act, 1858, will be laid before Parliament at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) There has been no expenditure in this country on account of stores for the use of the Tibet Mission. Should any specific payments on account of the Mission be made in England they will be included in the Home Accounts, which will be presented to Parliament in the ordinary course, together with the auditor's report, in accordance with Section 52 and 53 of the Government of India Act of 1858.

  Grievances of the Royal Irish Con- stabulary.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The pensions awarded will be in accordance with the following scale:—
  Lieutenant of Ireland if it is intended to introduce legislation this session to carry out the recommendations of the Commission which sat to inquire into the grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary as to pay and pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I cannot at present give an undertaking such as suggested.

  Expenditure under Military Works and Barracks Acts.
  MR. TOMKINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated expenditure out of loans under all Military Works Acts and Barracks Acts in the years 1903–4 and 1904–5 respectively; and what are the sums charged upon Army Votes in those two years for interest on those loans and for reduction of capital respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The expenditure under the Military Works Acts during 1903–4 is estimated approximately at £3,600,000. It is not possible at the present time to give the figures for 1904–5, but it is not anticipated that in any event the expenditure will be less than that during the current year. Expenditure under the Barracks

  391
  Act of 1890 has already ceased. The sums to be charged against Army Votes

  For Interest.

  For reduction of Capital.

  Total amount of Annuity.

  £

  £

  £

  1903–4

  Under Barracks Act.

  62,562

  241,405

  303,967

  Under Military Works Acts

  151,856

  97,041

  248,897

  Total

  214,418

  338,446

  552,864

  For Interest.

  For reduction of Capital.

  Total amount of Annuity.

  £

  £

  £

  1904–5

  Under Barracks Act.

  55,517

  248,450

  303,967

  Under Military Works Acts

  193,781

  153,776

  347,557

  Total

  249,298

  402,226

  651,524

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Wages of Indentured Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will require that the rate of wages which shall be paid to indentured Chinese labourers in the Transvaal shall not be less than the normal wage paid to Kaffir labourers engaged in occupations similar to those about to be undertaken by Chinese labourers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I do not consider it necessary or desirable to specify a minimum wage, but I have no fear that the standard of wages of the Chinese will be lower than that of Kaffir labourers.

  Income-Tax Deductions.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the fact that the London and Westminster Bank, Limited, as Agents for the Cape Government, deducted 1s. 3d. in the pound from dividends paid 15th April, 1903, and that this is 4d. in the
  in these two years in respect of Works Loans are—
  pound in excess of the amount due for income-tax on that date, will he state how much of the money thus overpaid has since been refunded by the Inland Revenue to stockholders.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): As the hon. Member has already been informed, † repayment has been granted in every case in which application (supported by the necessary evidence) has been made. I am informed that to compute the amount thus refunded would involve a great deal of labour and it would not, I think, serve any useful purpose.
  MR. WEIR: Am I to understand that this information cannot be obtained in a few minutes?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; the hon. Member is to understand it cannot be obtained with the ease he thinks.

  Metropolitan Extension Railway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that the atmosphere in the Metropolitan Extension Railway between
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 1135.

  393
  8 p.m. and midnight is specially foul through being surcharged with smoke emanating from coal of a highly bituminous character, will he represent to the railway company the desirability of using coal of a smokeless nature.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and, in reply, they inform me that on the extension line from Baker Street, as well as on the Inner Circle Railway the best hard Welsh smokeless coal is always used, and that inspectors are employed to see that the engine-drivers fire in a proper manner. It is added that the railway from Baker Street through the tunnels is to be worked by electricity at an early date.
  MR. WEIRsaid if the right hon. Gentleman would travel by a train near midnight from Baker Street to Finchley Road he would see that the facts were not stated in the information given to him.

  Aylesbury Convict Prison.
  MR DISRAELI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the extent of the damage done by the recent tire at His Majesty's Female Convict Prison at Aylesbury; what portion of the prison was destroyed; what will be the cost of rebuilding; and whether the work of restoration has been commenced.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The fire destroyed the interior of the building, which contained the administrative offices, the chapel, the officers' infirmary and the stores; it also destroyed the roof—but only the roof—of the central hall of the prison, from which the wings containing the cells radiate. The rein statement is estimated to cost about £5,000. The reconstruction of the roof of the central hall is, as a matter of urgency, being taken in hand at once, and plans are being prepared for the remainder of the work.

  Royal College of Science—Local Authorities Scholarships.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can indicate what scholarships or exhibitions are now being awarded by local authorities which, having regard to the present regulations of the College, may be held by a student at the Royal College of Science concurrently with a National scholarship; and whether, having regard to the reduced value of the National scholarship, the Board of Education will discontinue its objection to a National scholar receiving aid from other public sources.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I am afraid that the Board have not in their possession sufficient information as to the terms of tenure of the scholarships and exhibitions now being awarded by local education authorities to enable me to reply to the first part of the Question. Under the existing regulations the Board have never yet objected to a National scholar in the Royal College of Science receiving aid from other public sources.

  Island of Lewis—Social Condition.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the suggestions of the local committee relative to the recommendations contained in the Report on the social condition of the Island of Lewis, will he say whether he has yet decided on the course of action which he proposes to take so soon as the Congested Districts Amendment Bill has passed; and will he state whether the Second Reading of the Bill will betaken before Easter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I cannot formulate in advance any course of action on the assumption that the Bill referred to by the hon. Member will pass into law. I am afraid the state of business is such as to make it improbable that the Second Reading can be taken before Easter.

  Uncertified Deaths in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact

  395
  that the last Report of the Registrar General for Scotland shows that 80,107 deaths were registered in Scotland during 1901, will he state how many of these deaths were uncertified; and when he proposes to introduce legislation on the subject.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The number of deaths uncertified in Scotland during the year 1901 was 2,392. I am not in a position to give any pledge as to legislation on this subject.

  Public Buildings—Coal and Firewood Contracts.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, having regard to the fact that a sum of £51,400 for coal and firewood for public buildings in Great Britain, under Class 1, Vote 9, Sub-head E, represents an increase of £1,650 on the previous year, will he explain the cause of the excess, and state when the coal contract was signed, and for what term.
  LORD BALCARRES: The increase was to provide against anticipated rises in the prices of Welsh steam coal and coke, and also to meet augmented consumption due to the expansion of the public Departments. There is no general contract for the supply of fuel. Over 200 contracts are involved. There are separate contracts for the various descriptions of fuel required in the various parts of the country in which the public buildings are situated. The contracts are generally for one year and run from various dates, but are nearly all made in the summer.

  Licence Duties—Ireland's Equivalent Grant.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what was the net amount paid over to county and borough councils in England and Scotland respectively, in respect of licences for male servants, carriages, armorial bearings, and dogs in the year ended 31st December, 1903; what percentage is deducted by the Inland Revenue for collecting and allocating
  396
  these licence duties before handing over the proceeds to county and borough councils; and what was the annual amount fixed to be paid to Ireland as an equivalent grant at the time these licence duties were diverted from the Imperial Exchequer to the local taxation account for England and Scotland on the passing of the English Local Government Act.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The first part of the Question refers to the Local Government Board and the Scottish Office. The amounts paid to the local taxation account under each head for the year ended 31st March last are shown on page 55 of the last Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. No charge is made by the Inland Revenue Department for collecting the duties referred to. An annual sum of £40,000 has been paid since 1890–91 as the Exchequer contribution to Ireland under Section 5 of the Land Purchase Act, 1891, in consideration of the benefit which England and Scotland obtained when the licence duties were transferred to the local taxation account in Great Britain.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Interference with Religious Convictions.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Gilbride of the Royal Irish Constabulary and stationed at Ballymoney distributes to Protestant members of the force Roman Catholic emblems and literature, and that some time ago, on the sudden death of Head Constable Moffat, Gilbride broke open his private box and extracted Roman Catholic literature which was addressed to the head constable from a sergeant in county Tyrone; and will he state what action, if any, he intends to take to prevent interference with the religious opinions of policemen.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): Abou three years ago the constable entered into correspondence on religious matters with the head constable, who was not a Roman Catholic. On the death of the

  397
  latter the constable removed the correspondence from his own private box and destroyed it. The Inspector-General expressed disapproval of his action at the time. There is no foundation otherwise for the statements in the Question.

  Pay of Royal Irish Constabulary Inspectors.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the income (salary and allowances, etc.) of the county inspectors and district inspectors in the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Information on these matters will be found in the annual Estimates for the Constabulary.

  Tralee and Dingle Railway.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the negotiations between the Government and the Great Southern Railway Company for the taking over of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, any steps have been taken by the Government to safeguard the interests of the traders and travelling public by having, with places on the Tralee and Dingle Railway, a full and complete list of through rates and fares and suitable train service via the various ports of Ireland; whether, in view of the agreement between the. Great Southern and Western Railway and the Great Western Railway of England to support the route via Milford, he will take steps to secure for the other various ports in Ireland that offer better and more expeditious services to traders that they should be placed on an equal footing, at least, with this company, more particularly as the Great Southern and Western Railway Company are not carrying out the obligations entered into under the Amalgamation Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not at present in a position to make any announcement on the first part of the Question, In reply to the latter part of the Question, the Amalgamation Act of 1900 contains numerous provisions for the protection of the interests of various Irish ports, such as Dublin, Waterford, Cork, and Limerick, as well as the interests of
  398
  other places and districts. The Act contains, moreover, specific provisions for the settlement by arbitration of disputes arising in respect of the failure of the company to carry out its obligations. Under these latter provisions it is open to those affected injuriously to make application to the Board of Trade with a view to the determination of the matter in dispute by an Arbitrator to be appointed by that Department.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the agreement between the Government and the Great Southern and Western Railway?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no agreement. The matter has not yet reached that stage.
  MR. NANNETTI: What I ask is that before the negotiations are closed between the Great Southern and Western Railway and the Government, in which a certain sum out of the Development Grant is to handed over to the railway company, will a copy of the agreement between the company and the Government be laid upon the Table of the House?
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Will an opportunity tie afforded for discussing this question?
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, and as this is a matter that concerns my constituency, I would like to ask what are the conditions under which the line is to be given to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer that, and that he will be able to say that, after the expression of opinion he heard the other night, he abandons the idea altogether of giving the money to the Great Southern.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I would rather not re-open the matter now. There is no agreement between the Government and the railway. If there was such an

  399
  agreement I would be glad to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing it.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman has not abandoned the idea of getting this railway taken over by the Great Southern.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question cannot be debated.
  MR. NANNETTI: Before this sum of £20,000 out of the Development Grant is handed over to the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, will the right hon. Gentleman give Irish Members an opportunity of discussing the question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: We have already had a long debate on the Development Grant. I then stated a new Estimate was to be brought in, when another opportunity for discussion would arise.
  MR. NANNETTI: I take it the question is not yet finally settled?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Athlone Gun Licence.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why Mr. Newell, Resident Magistrate, Ballinasloe, has refused a gun licence to Mr. Thomas Mulvey, a farmer living near Thomastown, Athlone.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No application has been received from Mr. Thomas Mulvey. But one was received from Mr. John Mulvey. He refused to take out a ten shilling Excise licence, and hence the Resident Magistrate had no authority to issue to him a licence under the Peace Preservation Act.
  MR. REDDY: Was it not refused because the applicant declined to act as Public Prosecutor in a certain case?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Castlerea Police.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of police stationed in the town of Castlerea,
  400
  county of Roscommon; what is the population of the district entrusted to their charge; how long each member of the force stationed there has been in the town; and whether it is usual to leave any constables longer than a certain fixed period in any one place.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Twenty-one men, including the officer in charge. The population of the district is 4,233. The men have been stationed there for periods varying from less than a year to twelve years. There is no fixed rule on the subject.

  Estates in the Land Judge's Court.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return standing on this day's Notice Paper dealing with the Land Judge's Court.
  MR. WYNDHAM: An inquiry was hold some time ago in reference to the advisability of employing temporary assistance to enable an investigation to be made into the special circumstances of every case now pending in court, and after full consideration, the conclusion was arrived at that the cost of such an investigation would be out of all proportion to any advantage that could be derived from it. It is plain, therefore, that the preparation of such a Return as is asked for could not be undertaken by officials on the staff of the Court. I will consider whether some such Return can be arranged for in connection with the Return I have promised in respect of sales to, or sanctioned by, the Estates Commissioners. But, as at present advised, I can give no definite undertaking.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clerks in the Land Judge's Department are absolutely under notice of dismissal, because there is no work for them?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that.
  The following is the Return referred to:—Land Judge's Court. Return showing the number of estates in the Land

  401
  Judge's Court; the counties in which they are situate; the rents as shown by the last receiver account; the date on which the estates were placed in Court; and what proceedings, if any, had been taken for the sale of those estates.

  Education Act and Religious Controversies.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the desirability of finding some solution of the religious difficulty associated with education in public elementary schools, he will refer this question to a Select Committee of this House, or to a small Commission of Inquiry, in order that an accurate statement of fact may be placed before the country, and, if possible, some general agreement secured which might form the basis, if necessary, of subsequent legislation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As my hon. friend is aware, I have long held the opinion, which I have publicly expressed, that the present disputes about religious matters in connection with the Education Act are neither good for education nor good for religion; but I am not sure that the machinery which my hon. friend proposes would really do anything material to solve the problem, the difficulty of which everybody who has looked into the subject is fully aware of.

  Rules of Procedure.
  MR. DISRAELI: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, now that the changes in the Rules of this House have had ample and various opportunities of being tested, whether he will afford facilities for the individual opinions of Members to be freely expressed as to whether they find the changes to their convenience, or whether they would prefer to return to the former hours of meeting and sitting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure what kind of facilities my Hon. friend has in view. Does he mean a debate in this House? That, unfortunately, until the proposals of my hon. friend the Member for Essex come into operation,
  402
  would give him but a limited opportunity for every Member to express his views on the very large number of changes that are effected by the Rule. If he means a kind of ballot or plebiscite of the House, I do not quite see how that is to be undertaken. To formulate the questions would be difficult, and I do not know that I could undertake the task or provide the machinery for taking the answers.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of meeting at 2.30?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is altogether different to the Question on the Paper.
  MR. DISRAELI: My Question is meant to raise the point whether hon. Members may discuss and vote on the matters concerned as a family and not as a Party matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure my hon. friend carefully considered the matter before he put his Question. I am, however, quite unable to see how he would frame a Resolution which would give every Gentleman in this House an opportunity of stating his views. It must be a series of Resolutions, as long and probably as hardly contested as the original Resolutions I brought before the House. I do not know how long they took. I think they took up the time of the House continuously for several weeks.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose this session to introduce the end of the Standing Order which remains without an end?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: Would it impose too much labour on the right hon. Gentleman and his secretaries to invite the Members of the House to express to him by letter what their wishes are in regard to the hour of meeting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That only deals with one of the topics referred to by the

  403
  hon. Gentleman, and even that topic can hardly be discussed in isolation from the others. Everybody, beginning with His Majesty's Ministers, would like to meet later, of course. But the question is, what would you give up? Do you or do you not interfere too much with the general arrangement of the time which the House requires? Members of the House are always pressing me to give them opportunities for discussing this or that question; but while they make these appeals, as soon as I ask them to make any sacrifice of the general time of the House, then they are, perhaps naturally, reluctant to give the necessary facilities. All I can say about the afternoon meeting is that I have always regarded that as separate from the other Resolutions, and I have never expressed any final judgment on the precise hour at which we ought to meet. I am sure it ought not to be so late as to interfere with a good solid Second Reading debate in the afternoon.

  War Office Council.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Esher Committee was instructed to advise as to the creation of the War Office Council; what were the terms of reference given to the Committee; and whether he will lay these terms of reference in full before the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The terms of reference were "To advise as to the creation of a Board for the administrative business of the War Office and as to the consequential changes thereby involved."

  The West India Labour Ordinances.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I wish to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given private notice, arising out of an incident in Monday's debate. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman made a, statement to the effect that the preceding Government—and by gesture indicated me as the Minister in that Government responsible for India—had included in the Labour Ordinances for Trinidad and British Guiana, with insignificant difference, the regulations
  404
  contained in the Transvaal Ordinance. I ventured to contradict the statement across the Table, but am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the contradiction, for he took no notice of it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What was it?
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: That there were no differences except in unimportant particulars. The atmosphere of the House was at the time in a condition of which the right hon. Gentleman had reason to complain, and I did not venture to obtrude further interruption likely to involve a wrangle on a point of fact, not of argument. But now I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he will lay on the Table copies of the Trinidad and British Guiana Ordinances as to the immigration of Indian coolies to which he referred in his speech.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be sorry if anything I said or omitted to say should be interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman as in any way a discourtesy to him. [Sir HENEY FOWLER: Oh, no!] What I said or intended to say was that the differences between the Ordinances were immaterial so far as the allegations of slavery were concerned, and to that opinion I still adhere. I think the right hon. Gentleman and the House have the right to the fullest information on this point. The Trinidad Ordinance is already in print; the Guiana Ordinance is not at present, but it shall be reprinted; and I shall be happy to lay both on the Table. Should there be any difficulty in obtaining copies of the Trinidad Ordinance, that can be reprinted too.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: The Trinidad Ordinance appeared as an appendix to another Blue-book and might easily escape notice; it will he convenient if they both appear in the same form.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There will, be no difficulty in complying with rite request, which seems a very reasonable one.

  The Royal Palaces Vote.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask if, in view of a desire to discuss the

  405
  Royal Palaces Vote, and especially the expenditure upon Osborne, it can be submitted at an early date.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will keep the request in view, but it is inconvenient to give pledges long beforehand as to the order in which Votes shall be taken. I desire to consult the convenience of the House, and especially the natural critics of the Government, anions whom I suppose my Hon. friend may justly rank himself.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for re-arranging the boundaries of the dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester and Bath and Wells." [Bishopric of Bristol Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Justices of the Peace with respect to residence, to qualification of solicitors, and to the removal of ex-officio justices." [Justices of the Peace Bill [Lords.]

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
SUPPLY [25TH FEBRUARY] REPORT.

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15th March], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,700,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1904, for Additional Expenditure, in respect of the following Army Services, viz.:—

  £

  Vote 1. Pay, etc. of the Army

  2,000,000

  Vote 6. Transport and Remounts

  2,100,000

  Vote 7. Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  2,030,000

  Total.

  £6,130,000

  Excess Appropriations in Aid (Votes 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10)

  3,430,000

  £2,700,000

  Question again proposed.
  MR. WHITE RIDLEYsaid that undoubtedly it was the duty of financial critics of the Government to examine carefully into the expenditure of every sovereign whether on the Army or other Departments, but he ventured to assert that in the criticisms passed on the expenditure by hon. Members they too often failed to bear in mind the proportion of the increase in the expenditure as compared with the total outlay. The Vote under debate snowed an increase of £2,700,000. That apparently was a very large sum, but when they came to compare it with the total expenditure, which represented a considerable number of millions, it turned out, after all, to be a comparatively small matter. The expenditure mainly was in connection with the Somaliland campaign, and it would be well to bear in mind that it, was almost impossible to foresee the cost which such an expedition would entail. For the first time in the history of the House these expenses had been presented in a full and complete form, and the House, consequently had had special opportunities given it to consider the details of the expenditure. When hon. Members commenced to complain of the details he thought they ought not to forget that in past years they had not had an opportunity to consider such details, and they ought rather to recognise the public-spirited way in which the Government had acted in giving them. Unfortunately they had shown their gratitude for the outspokenness of the Government in a very parsimonious manner by entering unduly into detailed criticism. In regard to the operations in Somaliland, it ought to be borne in mind that they were undertaken on the full responsibility of the Government, and that a right hon. Gentleman, who no longer was a member of the Cabinet, had himself expressed the opinion that every member of the Government, at the time the expedition was authorised, was fully

  407
  responsible, and had added the hope that the operations would be concluded with the least possible delay. The Secretary of State for War, too, had told them that the operations were proceeding in a satisfactory manner, and that no effort was being spared to bring them to a close. He therefore thought that the House should not be disposed to put too is much blame upon the Government for the fact that the Estimate had been considerably exceeded. These expeditions, after all, were made in the interests of the honour and prestige of the British Empire, and any failure to carry out their objects would re-act with tenfold force upon this country. He had not risen to suggest any reduction in the estimate. His object had been rather to ask the House to realise that whatever increase, there was in the Vote was due to no serious mistake in the original Estimate, but rather to the difficulties of the campaign, and he thought the money ought to be, and would be, ungrudgingly granted by the country, and by all who wished to preserve the honour and prestige of the Empire. In Somaliland they had a difficult country for operations, they had to deal with predatory tribes who had been in the habit of interfering with British subjects, and whose incursions, if unchecked, might have involved this country in a war of a far more extensive character. It was not possible, at the beginning of a small expedition like that in Somaliland, to realise the extent of the operations which would be involved, and no one who was not conversant with the country or who was ignorant of the character of the tribes infesting the district could realise the importance of effectually stopping the incursions, or could understand the difficulty of dealing with tribes who had no fixed habitat. He did not think, considering the distance of Somaliland from England, it could be said that the Estimate was excessive, and he hoped that the House would not be disinclined to vote the necessary sum for the continuation of the expedition, but, on the contrary, express its appreciation of the fact that in continuing this expedition the Government were acting with the full approval of the country.
  COLONEL LEGGEdesired to say a few words
  408
  in regard to the first item of the Vote, that of "messing allowances." A few years ago an Army Order was issued granting the soldiers an extra sum of 3d. a day as a messing allowance. Soldiers, as they knew, got what was called free rations of bread and meat. They had a pound of bread and three-quarters of a pound of meat daily, but this extra messing allowance was granted to cover the cost of groceries, tea, vegetables, sugar, and everything of that kind. It had been the custom in the Army to make deductions from the soldier's pay for that purpose, but the deductions proving insufficient, two or three years ago it was decided to give the soldier an extra threepence a day in order to cover a portion of the cost. That was a very good thing to do, but like many other things done by the War Office, this was not carried out in the best possible way. Certain regulations were drawn up in regard to the issue of that messing allowance, and one of them was to the effect that the recruit was not to get the benefit of the extra threepence which the House of Commons had voted. Now the recruit was the very man who, above all others, wanted extra food. He required to be fed up. The Regulation, however, laid it down that no soldier should receive the extra allowance until he had been six months in the service, was nineteen years of age, and was certified by his commanding officer to have made satisfactory progress during the period. But it was during those first six months that the soldiers were in the most critical period of their service. They joined the Army, possibly, after having been for a period ill fed, and, therefore, it was essential that their condition should be studied in that particular respect. For some years he had been trying to induce the authorities to modify the Regulation, but he had been unsuccessful. He had been told that the modification he suggested would involve a very great increase in the Estimates for the year. No doubt that would be so. Then, again, the argument had been put forward that it was not fair that the unskilled and untrained soldier should receive as much pay as the trained soldier. With that he agreed, but he held that the War Office had made the initial blunder of giving the trained and untrained soldier the same pay and

  409
  then of reducing the allowance for food in the case of the untrained man. It would have been far better if they had given an equal food allowance to both, and had reduced the pay to the untrained man.
  Another point to which he wished to call especial attention was the Order issued a year ago depriving Lancer regiments of the lance. That Order, he gathered, was issued, in consequence of the report of General Ian Hamilton. With all respect to that gallant officer he wished to point out that he was an infantry soldier, and he (the speaker) did think that before the War Office came to a, decision on the point they ought to have consulted other authorities who had had some experience in cavalry work. He was supported in that view by a report written upon the operations of General Egerton. The correspondent who sent home the report described a defeat of the dervishes, and declared that had the British force included a regiment of Lancers they would have been able to do far more execution than was possible under the circumstances. He hoped before long the House might have some assurance on that point.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBdrew attention to the excessive amount of the Supplemental Vote for Somaliland—£1,400,000. It was an instance, he said, of the difficulty of estimating the cost of operations in a country so little known and understood. It was important at whatever cost, that, having commenced those operations, we should see them through, otherwise we might lose prestige, and however some might ridicule the notion, those who knew these countries knew that of all things prestige was the greatest factor for peace there. He rose to endeavour to impress on the Government the importance of carrying this Somaliland campaign through at all costs, because everyone knew how quickly news travelled in these savage countries, and they knew what effect any paltering and hesitating
  in Somaliland would have on the Aden hinterland.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that this was a Supplementary Estimate, not merely for £6,100,000, but, in addition, for £3,400,000, Appropriations in Aid received by the Department in excess of the Estimate. If this Estimate were voted the effect would be to arrest the £3,400,000 on its way to the new Sinking Fund and divert it from being applied to the diminution of the National Debt. He protested against the system of Supplementary Estimates, which had the result of falsifying two Budgets—the one that had passed and the one to come—and was entirely destructive of the control of the House over finance. This system had been increasing enormously. During the nine years this Government had been in office the Supplementary Estimates, many of them, he admitted, most justifiable, had amounted to £95,000,000. He hoped the House would resolve in future to set itself entirely against Supplementary Estimates unless the case made out for them was of an overwhelming character. For nine successive years Supplementary Estimates had been introduced, and he thought the time had arrived when this and other financial matters should be taken into serious consideration, especially when, as in this case, the Supplementary Estimates involved the withdrawal of £3,400,000 from the Sinking Fund, which constituted the great security and bulwark of our national credit. He urged the House to resolve to set its face in future against Supplementary Estimates of any sort, unless they were shown by overwhelming proof to have been unexpected and unavoidable. They had an evil effect on the financial control of Parliament, and unless this House insisted on regaining the financial control it had lost, the most serious financial consequences would ensue.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes. 136. (Division List No. 67.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

  Aird, Sir John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gretton, John

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Groves, James Grimble

  Percy, Earl

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F'.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Randles, John S.

  Bond, Edward

  Holder, Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Remnant, James Fanquharson

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Renwick, George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Chapman, Edward

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Russell, T. W.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Spear, John Ward

  Doughty, George

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Durning- Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Tufnell, Lieut-Col. Edward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milvain, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheff'ld

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Forster, Henry William

  Moore, William

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Garfit, William

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Goschen, Hon, George Joachim

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  412

  413

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Wood, James

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Mara, James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chales Fredk.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Parrott, William

  Bell, Richard

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Black, Alexander William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Price, Robert John

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lambert, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Caldwell, James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Rigg, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Roche, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Delany, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Dewar, John A. (Invernessh.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M' Fadden, Edward

  Slack, John Bamford

  Doogan, P.C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ellice, Capt E. C (S Andrw'sBghs

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Mooney, John J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wallace, Robert

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Thomas Bayley.

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Moved to resolve, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, the sum of £4,256,177 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the united Kingdom.
MR. BUCHANANasked if that sum included the Supply which was not yet passed by the House. He thought it was irregular to introduce this Resolution to the Committee, which included the whole sum for the Supplementary Estimates, when they had only dealt with one half of them. Such a method of precedure was somewhat risky, because they had already reduced one of the items included in this sum.
THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that this Resolution includes all the Supplementary Estimates which have been

415
considered by the House in Committee. It is quite true that some of them have not been agreed to by the House, but they have been agreed to by the House sitting in Committee. That being so, there is nothing irregular in taking the Committee of Ways and Means now, for that is the usual procedure which takes place at the end of the session.
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, the sum of £4,256,177 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Moved to resolve, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, the sum of £39,571,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to raise at some stage of this Bill the question of Votes on Account being taken for six months instead of two months. He wished to know if it would be more appropriate to raise that point on the Second Reading of the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it would be in order at this moment, because this Resolution simply embodies the fact that this House has already agreed that this sum shall be appropriated for the Civil Service purposes of the year, and it is not possible to go back from that. When this Resolution is embodied in the Bill for the Second Reading, then it will be open to the hon. Member to discuss the matter.
MR. WHITLEYcomplained of the way that this Resolution had been placed before the House. All the information they had about it was a notice on the Paper which read "Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer: To vole a sum or sums of money (in Committee of Ways and Means)." He thought the different items ought to be printed on the Paper instead of being left until the moment they were moved.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the Motion had been put down in the way it was always put, and there were very good reasons for that method. In certain proceedings in Ways and Means it was almost impossible to give the exact terms of the Motion because those Votes were liable to alteration up to the very last moment, and he had known cases when the authorities at the Table had been busily engaged at the very last moment adding up the Votes in Committee of Supply to make up the Vote in Ways and Means. Therefore there was a practical difficulty about giving the House full details on the Paper, and he did not think there was any practical inconvenience in the form in which the Motion was placed on the Notice Paper. It was well understood that the sum asked for out of the Consolidated Fund would be the sum already voted in Committee of Supply, therefore he thought they would do well to follow what had been the usual practice.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that very few hon. Members actually knew what was the sum that had been put from the Chair. It might sometimes be difficult to place on the Notice Paper the exact sum, but he thought they ought to have more information on the Paper, and this was not the way in which the House ought to be treated. It was not respectful to the House or to the Committee to ask them to vote a sum which the, knew nothing about. He agreed that this sum was largely formal, but he had known instances where a sum of £10,000,000 was sprung upon the House. He thought some form might be invented which could be placed in the hands of Members giving more details of the Votes with which they were dealing.
MR. COURTENAYWARNERsaid the House ought not to be kept in the dark up to the last moment as to the details of any Vote. The statement which appeared on the Notice Paper was very vague indeed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid what they were now asking for was sanction to issue out of the Consolidated

417
Fund all the money which had already been voted in Committee of Supply. It had been ruled that they could not discuss the different items which had been before the Committee for discussion, and the Motion was really in the nature of a formal stage authorising the issue of the money.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid if they only knew what the Votes were it would be very useful. He should like sufficient information given such as would give them some idea of what they were going to discuss.
Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, the sum of £39,571,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

TELEGRAPH [MONEY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland. Penrith) in the Chair.]
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,),in moving the Resolution, asked the House to allow him to postpone what he had to say in regard to the telephone service until the Second Reading of the Bill with respect to this issue of £3,000,000. This was a formal Resolution asking the House to allow an arrangement to be made for this sum of money for the purpose of extending and amplifying the present telephone service. This was not a new principle. It had been advocated in this House in the past, and he was glad to think that the proposals which his predecessors had put forward had been successively successful. The money the House was now asked to vote would be of a remunerative character. The increase in the receipts for the telephone service was growing very rapidly as he hoped, on the Second Reading of the Bill, to be able to show. On the Second Reading of the Bill he would
418
give full details of the working of the Acts.
Moved to resolve. That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums not exceeding in the whole £3,000,000 for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1899, and to apply the provisions of The Telegraph Act, 1892, to the raising of such sums.
MR. McCRAEasked whether the noble Lord would be able to say anything on the Second Reading of the Bill regarding the intention of the Post Office in respect to the acquisition of the National Telephone Company's undertaking. He understood that they had an opportunity prior to 31st December, 1904, of giving six months notice of their intention to acquire the National Telephone Company's undertaking.
LORD STANLEYsaid he would not be prepared to state more on that subject on the Second Reading than he could state now. The money now asked for was in no way mixed up with the question of purchasing the National Telephone Company's undertaking. There were negotiations going on at the present moment with regard to what should be done in the future for the amalgamation, or rather the absorption, of the National Telephone Company in the Postal Telephone Service. He was afraid that he should not be able on the Second Reading to make any declaration. He was in hopes that he might before very long be able to come before the House with some proposition. The money now asked was for the extension of the Post Office Telephone Service in districts where it was urgently required and demanded, and where they were unable to provide the service owing to lack of funds.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Resolution was to authorise the issue of the money out of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the money was to be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. The Treasury was

419
to have authority to raise the money by short terminable annuities.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not think the noble Lord had taken the most convenient course in deferring the explanation. The noble Lord said this Resolution was formal, but when the Bill was brought forward they would be told that the House had practically agreed to this. He thought the House should be very careful before it agreed to impose on the Consolidated Fund, which was already overcharged, this further sum without any explanation. The Committee would not fail to remember that the bargain made between the National Telephone Company and the Post Office was disastrous. They were made to vote several millions—a million more or less was so small in this connection that one did not remember the exact sum—for the purpose of competing with the National Telephone Company, and, although he understood the noble Lord to deny it, the money now asked was really for the acquisition of the National Telephone Company.
LORD STANLEY: No.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Well, absorption was the word used. It might be that, having got three millions to develop the Post Office system, the noble Lord would require three, four, five, or ten millions for the absorption of the Telephone Company, with which the Post Office was now supposed to be competing. The present system was a system of competition with the National Telephone Company. He thought the time had arrived when the noble Lord should make a clean breast of his telephone policy. He was not going to attack the Post Office telephone system. He thought it was extremely well worked, and he could bear personal testimony to the excellence of the arrangements. There was scarcely ever a hitch or a breakdown. The basis of the bargain between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company had, he thought, been throughout disastrous. What he was afraid of was that a still further disastrous course might be entered upon with regard to the National Telephone Com-
420
pany, and the taxpayers might be saddled with an enormously increased cost. His opinion always was, and he endeavoured to impress it on the late Mr. Hanbury, that the Government should buy out the National Telephone Company, and he would rather the £3,000,000 now asked was avowed to be part of the sum for which the National Telephone Company was to be purchased. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if the noble Lord would give a little more information on the subject now. It would prepare their minds for the course he was going to take. If the noble Lord made the statement now he would find that when the Bill came on for Second Reading the conduct of it would be less difficult.
MR. McCRAEsaid if the noble Lord made a statement now they would be able to ask Questions in an informal way, but that could not be done if the statement was postponed until the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD STANLEYsaid he was perfectly ready to make a statement now. He hoped the House would take the statement once and for all, and that it would not be necessary to repeat it on the Second Reading of the Bill. In previous years £4,300,000 had been voted for the telephones by the Acts of 1892, 1896, 1898, and 1899. That money had not been expended, except as regarded the purchase of the trunk lines and in buying other plant. It had been used for the further development of the postal telephone service. The extra amount he was now asking was not to purchase any plant of any other company, but was to extend the trunk lines where required, and to create exchanges in places where there was now a great demand for the telephone. He had a long list of these places, but it would probably weary the House to read it. They were all over the Kingdom, and he was glad to think that, the telephone was extending into districts where the telegraph had not reached, and that it was of infinite service in small towns where the telegraph was not of the same use. In round figures the expenditure had been as follows: On trunk lines £2,180,000; on exchanges in London £1,495,000; on exchanges in

421
the provinces £262,000; and on stores and stock of telephone requirements £233,000. The total expenditure was £4,174,000, leaving a balance of £126.000, which would just carry them over the present financial year. The amount he was now asking was £3,000,000, which would be distributed roughly as follows—though he would not like to bind himself absolutely to the accuracy of the distribution, owing to the fact that demands must be met as they arose:—£1,300,000 for trunk lines; £1,500,000 for London exchanges; and £200,000 for provincial exchanges. Speaking roughly, this would carry them on for five years, but lie should explain that if the demand for telephones increased in an even greater pro-portion than in the past the Rouse would probably be asked to grant a further sum. It might interest the House to know something of the work done by the telephone. The number of conversations during one year of their operation was 12,895,883. The number of single conversations over the telephone compared very favourably with those over the corresponding plant in other countries.
The London exchanges had been the most expensive; but they were also most complete and of the largest capacity. There was only one thing which, lie believed, people disliked more than the paying of taxes, and that was having the streets pulled up in front of their doors; and, therefore, it was necessary in taking up the streets and laying down pipes for telephone wires to have regard to the amount of expansion of business in the future. Accordingly a certain amount of unremunerative capital had been expended initially, but in after years that would be remunerative. At the present moment the capacity of the plant in London was for 40,000 subscribers, but they had just yet only 15,292 subscribers, so that only a third of the plant was in profitable use. But they were going to have an exchange for 6,000 subscribers at Hampstead and one for 2,000 subscribers at Ealing. It might interest the Committee to know that there were in London 1,094 miles of underground pipes, in which there were, at present, 110,128 miles of wires. These had all been provided for by the money voted by the Committee. Of course
422
there were miles and miles of spare pipes only waiting for the development of subscribers to be tilled with wires. He could not give corresponding figures as to provincial exchanges; but the increase of subscribers in the provinces to the Post Office telephones was from 1,259 in 1899 to 5,000 this year. It was in the smaller towns, with a limited number of subscribers, that the greatest increase had taken place; and the telephones there had undoubtedly been excessively useful.
While the expenditure had increased, he was glad to say that the receipts had equally increased. In the central exchanges in thirteen months the receipts amounted to £61,000. In regard to payment, as the Committee knew, there were two rates—a fixed rate which covered all charges; and there was also a fixed rate and a payment for so much per call. Ninety per cent, of the London subscribers accepted the second rate—a minimum rent of £5, plus 30s. as a minimum for messages, and a penny for every message after that. Now, the cheapest telephone which had been asked for was by the London County Council, viz., £10 per annum. He was glad to think that this latter rate, taking an average, worked out considerably less than £10 for the use of the Post Office telephones in the London area. It was slightly under £8, which was a great deal cheaper than had ever been contemplated as possible some time ago. As to actual profits, as he had said, a great deal of the capital was, so to speak, lying idle at present waiting to be developed; but the increase of receipts had been so great last year that he was sanguine enough to believe that next year the system would be a paying concern; and that in subsequent years it would be an enormously paying business. In the Report of the Postmaster-General last year the balance towards meeting depreciation and interest on capital expended was stated to be £6,155. He had had drawn up a statement on exactly the same lines, and that showed that they should be able to earn £48,000 next year—a jump which he thought justified him in saving that before long the Post Office telephone system in London would be more profitable than at present. It was

423
for the extension of that policy that he was asking this money; and he hoped he had been able to show the Committee hat he was not asking the Committee to rote money which would be for an unremunerative service. It had nothing to do with the National Telephone Company. They were going to extend the lines with which the National Telephone Company had nothing to do, and by extending the trunk lines they would be extending exchanges for which there was a great demand. The Post Office was therefore not competing with the National Telephone Company in areas where the National Telephone Company already existed, but they were getting telephones into towns and villages which under ordinary circumstances would never be able to get such a service. Moreover, they were building up a general system which would prove beneficial to the whole business community. His hon. friend spoke about the purchase of the National Telephone Company's undertaking. That was quite outside the present question. It was true that the Post Office was able before the end of the year to give notice to the National Telephone Company to purchase by arbitration unless they could previously come to some agreement.
MR. LOUGH: Must not the notice be given in June?
LORD STANLEYsaid he was not quite certain as to the date, and he would find out; but they could do it by agreement before. He believed that purchase by arbitration would be a very expensive thing to undertake; and he was much more inclined to accept the other alternative of making some amicable agreement. But that was not in any way bound up with this particular Resolution which he was now asking the Committee to agree to. If it came about that there would be an agreement, it would come up for approval by the House of Commons. He, therefore, asked the Committee to accept the Resolution which was to grant power to the Post Office to obtain £3,000,000 more money for a system to which the Committee had already devoted a large sum, which had been profitably invested and which
424
in the future would show as large a profit as in the past.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that before granting this £3,000,000, this was obviously an occasion for reviewing the Post Office telephone system—more especially from two points of view. The first was the expediency of handing over the telephone system to the London County Council instead of spending more money on the Post Office system: and the second was, what was to be done with the National Telephone Company? It was all very well for the Postmaster-General to say that after negotiations had taken place, the Post Office would come to the House and ask the House to give sanction to an agreement. That was a practice which the House of Commons had always condemned, because the agreements carried by private arrangement were invariably carried by the Government majority after twelve o'clock at night. The House of Commons had therefore no say in the arrangement. The same thing took place in connection with the purchase by the Government of the trunk lines from the National Telephone Company. The Government would tell the House of Commons, after they had made an agreement, that it was not judicious to go into an explanation of negotiations until these were finished. The House of Commons therefore found they were always stultified in their criticism. The Post Office had formerly made their own arrangements with the National Telegraph Company, which proved to be disastrous to the public interest. He suggested that the proper way, if the House of Commons was to have effective control over the expenditure of this £3,000,000, was for the noble Lord to say, on behalf of the Government, to what extent that money would be spent by the Post Office, or whether it would be handed over to the London County Conned, as had been done in Glasgow, where the municipal telephone system had worked remarkably well. He did not suppose the Government were particularly anxious to extend the telephone business, or anything else, if they could get a local body to undertake the work, and do it more efficiently, since they had control of

425
the streets. The House had no confidence in any arrangement between the National Telephone, Company and the Government. The officials of the company were far too clever for the Government officials, as had been shown on previous occasions. Under the Telegraphs Acts notice might be given six months before 31st December, 1904, if the Post Office desired to purchase the undertaking of the National Telephone Company, otherwise the company would continue until 1911. The company were anxious to realise now, while the present Government were in power, instead of waiting until the end of their lease, when they would be practically at the mercy of the Post Office. Obviously, the question of purchase was one which ought to be considered by a strong Committee of this House; and he thought the House should have an assurance to that effect. The expenditure of this £3,000,000 was inseparably bound up with the policy of the Post Office. He was astonished that the Postmaster-General should have imagined that this was merely a formal stage. The Telegraphs Hill was a money Bill and might be brought on after midnight, in which case there would be no opportunity for a discussion. He would, therefore, suggest the appointment of a strong Committee to consider the entire question before the money was voted. Such a Committee would relieve the Post Office of a great deal of responsibility, and would thoroughly investigate the entire matter.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it appeared that the £3,000,000 required would be raised by terminable annuities. Was that amount to be spread over five years and would the sum to be raised in the first year be comparatively small? According to the Postmaster-General the income from the Post Office telephones was increasing; and, therefore, it was more or less a good investment. He agreed, however, that the present was a most inopportune time to buy out the Telephone Company as the Post Office telephone system would be able to gradually elbow out the company's system. He certainly would deprecate any large sum being paid for the purchase of the. Telephone Company at present.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the only accounts the House had in reference
426
to the Post Office telephones also included the telegraphs; and, therefore, there was difficulty in ascertaining what the results of the telephones really were. The telegraph account showed a continually increasing loss. In 1903 the balance of expenditure over receipts was £601,000, the previous year it was £651,000, and the year before that £337,000. Even these amounts did not include all the loss that was incurred. He wished to put it to the House that this was a losing concern. It was said that the great house of Rothschild made its reputation and its fortune by following the dictum of cutting its losses and leaving its profits to run on. The Post Office was a losing concern, and to propose to put £3,000,000 into it was a very serious matter, and one not to be viewed with satisfaction. The Postmaster-General made a serious proposal to lump all the Post Office Votes together. He, on the contrary, would suggest that the accounts should be cut up, in order to show the exact working of the different departments. At present, the telegraph and telephone accounts were joined. That, in his opinion, was wrong. The two services were essentially different; and the accounts for each ought to be given separately. It was rather deplorable to find that, while the National Telephone Company was making very handsome profits, the Post Office was making a greater and greater loss. He asked his noble friend to contrive to give the accounts of the telegraphs and telephones separately.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether a portion of this money would be spent on an extension of the telephone system in Ireland. If so, he would gladly support it.
LORD STANLEYassented.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid the loss on the telegraph service was nearly £1,000,000, and one reason given by the Post Office was the great use that was being made of the telephone. The life of the National Telephone Company would cease in seven years, and he would like to know from the Postmaster-General whether any

427
arrangement was being made for buying the undertaking. The words of Mr. Arnold Morley were still fresh in the memory of the House. Mr. Arnold Morley said he would not give the Telephone Company more than the price of old iron for their undertaking. If that were so, and they could have some assurance that the country would not be called upon to pay an enormous sum for the company, he thought they would vote the money now before them much more cheerfully.
MR. McCRAEthought it would be a great convenience, in view of the possible acquisition of the National Telephone Company's system, if they could have the accounts presented separately, as suggested by the hon. Member opposite. Bo far as he understood, there was an option of purchase in 1904. But, if the Government were going to exercise that option, he gathered they would have to give six months' notice prior to 31st December. So there was really not very much time for the Government to make up their mind with regard to what they were going to do with the Telephone Company. He hoped that, until the Government had settled its policy on this question, no part of these £3,000,000 would be spent on competitive undertakings with the Telephone Company. They wanted effective competition between the Post Office and the company, but if the Government were going to acquire the company's undertaking, there should be no expenditure on any works which would be of an overlapping character. He should like to know from the Postmaster-General what period was to he taken for these annuities.
LORD STANLEY: Twenty years.
MR. MCCRAEthought that was a very reasonable period for work of this kind. In view of the fact that they were piling up the National Debt to an extent which had not been equalled for many years, he desired to impress on the noble Lord the necessity for proceeding cautiously in this matter.
MR. FIELDexpressed himself as being favourable to the extension of the telephone service in Ireland, but, at the same time, stated that
428
a great deal might be said on the question of cost. As compared with the services of Norway, Sweden, and other Continental nations, the cost of the Irish service was prohibitive. In those countries the business was almost entirely done by means of the telephone, but in Ireland it was very seldom done in that way—the cost was too prohibitive. The telephone service was practically a branch of the Post Office telegraph service, and it ought to be at the service of the public in the same way. It should not belong to a private company, and he was at a loss to understand why the Government could not make a profit out of it.
MR. LOUGHsaid the statement of the Postmaster-General as to the increased receipts from the London service had been favourably received; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give fuller particulars. Four-and-a-quarter millions of capital had been sunk in the undertaking; and £48,000 was not nearly sufficient to meet the interest and depreciation charges on so large a sum. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state the amount of receipts for the telephone service for the whole country, whether the service was paying, and, if not, whether it held out a prospect of paying shortly. The Committee were obliged to ask for this information because the accounts as published included the telegraph accounts. It was essential that the accounts for the two services should be separated, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give fuller information regarding these accounts and state the amount of the net estimated receipts to the end of the year. The Postmaster-General evidently believed the business to be a good and paying one into which the State ought to plunge to a far greater extent. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, believing that, properly managed, the telephone service would be of the greatest benefit to the community, and that it ought to belong to the State. He was in favour of a progressive policy, but before a vote was taken the right hon. Gentleman ought to give definite pledges in regard to certain points. What was to be the policy of the Post Office with regard to the encouragement of local authorities to develop local telephone services? Did the Department intend to follow the

429
course adopted by the National Telephone Company in buying up the Tunbridge Wells system, or would local authorities be encouraged to develop their local systems? Reference had been made to the splendid facilities afforded in foreign countries, but on the basis of the number of services to the population the Island of Guernsey had a system which could hardly be beaten. With a population of 40,000, there was a telephone for every thirty-three inhabitants; and although the service was exceedingly cheap, there was a balance of profit after all expenses had been paid. That was a good instance of the result of working the telephone system simply and economically.
The right hon. Gentleman had promised that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the agreement with the Telephone Company. If that promise meant that the agreement would be entered into and then the House would be asked to say "Aye" or "No" to it, it would be a most unsatisfactory proceeding. He was glad to hear that negotiations were going on; everybody would be wiling to deal fairly with the Company, and it would be to the advantage of the State to take over the undertaking as soon as possible on fair terms; but ho was anxious that the House should have fair play in this matter, as it had never been properly treated in telephone negotiations in the past. He suggested that the terms of the agreement, when drafted, should be submitted to a Select Committee with a simple reference, so that the House would know whether it was safe to go on with the matter or whether amendments were necessary. He was extremely interested in an experiment which at his suggestion the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had carried out in an outlandish area in Ireland. In county Cavan the county town was connected with several sub-districts by telephone for the purpose of sending telegrams, and at his suggestion, the public in the district were allowed to use the telephone. The concession was a great advantage to the district, and had been availed of to a considerable extent. He believed that a similar arrangement might with advantage be made in many country districts, and he
430
suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should take the matter into his consideration. In London considerable difficulty arose from the scarcity of call-offices and their inconvenient situations. Why should not every post office be made a call-office? Such an arrangement would be a great convenience to the public, and would tend greatly to increase the use of the telephone.
MR. BRIGGcomplained of the unbusiness like condition of the present arrangements between the Government and the Telephone Company. The company s licence expired in 1911, and consequently, whenever anybody asked for improvements to be made, the invariable reply of the Company was that they could do nothing as they were in the hands of the Government, and would be obliged in 1911 to give up all their rights and claims. Between the Government not buying and the company not selling the public were being badly served. The company were naturally averse to spending money on works which would last longer than the period of their licence, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to endeavour to come to an arrangement which should come into operation immediately.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the form the raising of this money would, take would be a sort of domestic loan and there would be no question of disturbing the money market. He thought it was advisable that the telephone and telegraph accounts should be kept separate. With reference to the purchase of the National Telephone Company by the State it should not be forgotten that that would involve a great increase in the number of persons employed in the public service. Already there were about 170,000 persons employed by the Post Office, and they represented a very serious danger to the independence of Members of this House. Consequently it was a rather serious matter for the Government to adopt any suggestion which might add a few more thousands to those already employed.
LORD STANLEYsaid the principal question was that of the future arrangement to be made with the National Telephone Company. His personal opinion was, notwithstanding certain dangers which he clearly foresaw, that

431
the right thing was probably purchase, and purchase by agreement would probably be cheaper than purchase by arbitration. That, of course, was a matter for consideration; and he thought that in such a matter, where the amount paid would, for all time, have an effect upon the receipts from what would be a national institution, the whole subject must be thoroughly discussed. He would not like to decide off-hand, but he rather inclined to the proposition that a small Select Committee of the House should be appointed. Of course, however, negotiations must go on between the Postmaster-General and his representatives and the company, and not between the Committee and the company; and all he could pledge himself to was that the House should have every possible opportunity, so far as he could give it, for considering this agreement, and that no agreement should be in any way binding on the Government until it had received the assent and ratification of the House. He should endeavour to give opportunities for full consideration before coming to a decision, and very likely a Select Committee would consider any agreement he might propose. He might propose an agreement, and then ask for a small Select Committee, but he asked hon. Members not to bind him clown in regard to a matter which he had not considered before he came down to the House.
MR. LOUGHthought there was other machinery apart from a discussion in the House for the consideration of such an agreement.
LORD STANLEYsaid he would not pledge himself, but the agreement would be considered by those best qualified to deal with it. At the present time he would not bind himself by any definite pledge. The hon. Member for Edinburgh asked whether the Post Office and the company were overlapping. They were not in any way; the former was only dealing with trunk lines or with areas into which the company would not or could not go. He would be only too ready to help in every way any municipality that wished to start its own telephones.
MR. McCRAEpointed out that municipalities could not get an extension beyond 1911 unless a similar extension was granted to the National Telephone Company.
LORD STANLEYsaid he hoped that the present difficulty—that a municipality could not get an extension beyond 1911 without the company's receiving the same extension—might be overcome when they came to a general agreement. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Islington that every post office should be made a call-office, he was willing to consider the possibility of such a thing. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the accounts should be kept separate, he believed that they were kept separate for London, but he was not certain how far that was possible for the telephone area of the three kingdoms. He thought separate accounts should be kept, and he would look into the matter to see if it was possible to meet the hon. Member's suggestion.
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of any sums not exceeding in the whole £3,000,000 for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1899, and to apply the provisions of The Telegraph Act, 1892, to the raising of such sums.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY [23RD FEBRUARY].
Resolution reported.
SUPPLY [23RD FEBRUARY].

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,270,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904, for Expenditure in respect of the following Navy Services, viz:—

  £

  Section I. Personnel

  53,200

  Section III. Contract Work

  1,254,800

  £1,308,000

  Section II. Matériel:— Deduct Appropriations in Aid

  38,000

  £1,720,000

  MR. RUNCIMANcomplained of the manner in which repairs were underestimated, and also of the huge sums spent on repairing comparitively new vessels. In two years the amount spent upon repairs had increased from £175,000 to something just under £1,000,000. This was due, no doubt, to the fact that repairs were now given out to private dockyards and also to the fact that the policy of the Admiralty had gone a great deal ahead of their original intention. He wished to refer to two or three instances of inaccurate estimating—a practice which showed itself in the Votes year after year. He would take three large vessels. In the case of the "Trafalgar" £46,000 was put down for repairs but the actual amount spent was £60,000. In the case of the "Minerva" the estimate was £32,000 and the cost £45,000; and the "Nile" repairs were estimated at £18,900, hut the actual cost was £47,000. In careful estimating it was necessary that some margin should be allowed, and it would have been much wiser to have intimated to the House at the time that more money might have to be asked for to carry out necessary repairs. He should like to direct attention to four cases of a serious character. The "Circe," which was only ten years old, cost £65,000, and the repairs undertaken on behalf of the Admiralty two years ago actually cost £52,000. In the case of the "Leda," also ten years old, the original cost was £62,000, and her repairs under one undertaking, not accumulated, was £52,000. The "Halcyon," eight years old, cost £75,000, and her repairs amounted to £55,000. The "Jason," ton years old, cost £50,000, and the amount spent on her repairs was £52,000. Surely it would have been much cheaper for the Admiralty to have built new vessels, having the advantage of new designs, rather than to go on tinkering up old ships at a cost which would have provided new ones. He did not wish to labour his criticism of the system adopted by the Admiralty of repairing vessels at the net cost plus a percentage, but he must point out that certainly, in the cases which he had instanced, either the system was seriously at fault or else the Admiralty officials had not known what
  434
  they were undertaking when they placed the vessels for repairs in private dockyards. He believed there were many other cases similar to those he had mentioned.
  COLONEL DENNYsaid that in the case of the vessels referred to by the hon. Member opposite, the repairs included new boilers and machinery, and, although he was not justifying the action of the Admiralty, he thought it right to point out that as the result of the alterations the speed of the vessels had been considerably increased in each case, and possibly the boats were much better now than they were when originally built. He was quite certain that the owners of the private dockyards who had undertaken the repairs were the last persons to shrink from inquiry into the accounts. Speaking as a member of the profession he desired to say that, although he was always against the spending of money on old articles because he thought that very often it was a pure waste of money, he still thought that when the Admiralty in their wisdom determined on the spending of a certain amount of money on vessels so that they might be ready quicker than new vessels, the system adopted was the best we could have.
  MR. GEORGE BROWNcalled attention to the Report of the Accountant-General, which had been issued since this matter was last before the House. He dealt with the Navy Appropriation for 1902–3, and pointed out that the system of contracting for repairs was attended with considerable disadvantages. The Accountant-General mentioned that in the first place experiments in tins direction had been tried and had proved costly as compared with estimate work. A case was mentioned in which the cost was no less than double what it would have been under the ordinary estimate system, and the Accountant-General went on to show that the different yards had different methods of accounting. It, was therefore, an exceedingly difficult thing to calculate the amount which should be allowed for general expenses, and it was impossible to secure uniformity in all the yards.

  435
  The proportional charge for general expenses varied very greatly accordingly to the amount of extra Government work which there might be in any yard at any given time. He thought the variation in these percentages would astonish the House. The Accountant-General said that they varied in the case of cruisers from 19 to 40 per cent., and he mentioned one case where the percentage added was actually 65·7. His object in drawing the attention of the Admiralty to these points was simply to ask what was being done to remedy these difficulties. Had they arrived at some standard of percentage as to the method on which the general expenses should be calculated so as to secure uniformity among the different yards? The contractors in some cases made claims against the Admiralty for their proportion of expenses on what was known as finished works; that was to say, some of the machinery was bought from a sub-contractor at a contract price, and then the chief contractor made a claim against the Admiralty for general expenses calculated over this finished work. He wished to know whether a settlement had been arrived at in reference to that, and whether the Admiralty refused to acknowledge such claims at the present time. In the last debate on this subject a word was dropped from the Treasury Bench which led him to ask whether the cost of repairs in His Majesty's dockyards had been compared with the cost of corresponding work done in private yards, and, if so, whether a little information on that point could be given to the House. It seemed to him that a great many hon. Members would be glad to know that besides getting additional speed, the work was being done on economical and businesslike lines.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the hon. Member for Dewsbury had called attention to the fact that the cost of repairs on some individual ships in private dockyards amounted to about as much as the original cost. He did not suppose that the hon. Gentleman suggested that the present system was bad and that he would prefer the work should be transferred to the Royal dockyards. Everyone who had studied the question
  436
  would admit that it was better to leave the Royal dockyards, available, for new construction and to have the repairs done in private yards. As to the system of paying for repairs by the cost of labour and material plus a percentage, he ventured to say that the hon. Member for Dewsbury would almost invariably have his own ships repaired on that system rather than by getting an estimate for repairs beforehand, for the simple reason that it was impossible to estimate the cost of repairs, whether the ships belonged to the Admiralty or the mercantile marine.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not know what the hon. Member's reference to him had to do with the Admiralty. He wished to inform the hon. Member that his firm worked on the contract system.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs had answered the hon. Member's complaint as to the cost of repairs by explaining the nature of the work done. It was sometimes better to carry out extensive repairs on an existing vessel than to set to work to build a new one which might have more modern features. So long as the Admiralty pursued the policy of having repairs done in private dockyards and paying on the ascertainment of the actual cost, so long would the House support them, notwithstanding the criticism of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said the hon. Member for the Central Division of Edinburgh was under a misapprehension as to the relative cost of the work done in the private yards and the Royal dockyards.
  MR. GEORGE BROWNsaid that he had read the Auditor-General's Report, in which that official contrasted the system of taking estimates in the ordinary way with that of getting repairs done on the cost of labour and materials; and stated, taking the accounts for 1902–3, that the latter system worked out very expensively. In particular, the Auditor-General gave a case where the cost of gun-mountings on the system of labour and material was double that

  437
  of similar work done on ordinary estimates.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid there wore reasons why that ease could not be considered a test ease. With regard to the present system there was no reason to say that the actual cost of work done in private yards was materially greater than the cost of that done in the dockyards. Some confusion existed with regard to this matter, because the great divergencies that had been referred to wore not between the cost of contract and dockyard work, but between the estimate and the actual cost. It was perfectly evident that the estimates of the work framed in the dockyards before the ship was opened out could not be based on accurate information as to the work actually required—especially in regard to machinery and boilers. It had happened frequently that the cost of work done on machinery and boilers in private yards had been exceeded, but that did not mean that if the work had been done in the dockyards it would have cost any less. He agreed that it was desirable to make an accurate comparison of the cost of the work done in the dockyards and in private yards, and the Admiralty were now doing that, but he was sorry he could not now give the actual figures. However, an estimate was being made with regard to some of these large refits, now that the work was actually done and the full extent of it was known, as to what this work would have cost if done in the dockyards instead of in the private yards. As to the percentages, the variation to which attention had been drawn was really a fictitious one. It depended almost entirely on whether certain material parts of the expenditure on the ship were charged to the basis of the percentage or to the percentage itself. This was an entirely new experiment; and, being new, they were unable to lay down hard and fast rules to suit all cases; therefore they could not fix a certain percentage which would cover all cases. But as a matter of fact, if the different methods of calculating the percentage were taken into consideration, it generally came to 10 per cent. on material and 40 per cent. on labour or thereabouts. Another misconception was that this work had been given to
  438
  the private yards in order to get particular work done more quickly. He did not admit that the work could be done more cheaply, or better, or more quickly in private yards than in the dockyards. But there was a very large amount of arrears of repair work which the dockyards could not undertake, occupied as they were with new construction as well as repairs; and these contracts were given to private yards simply because it was necessary to extend the area over which the work could be done. The hon. Member opposite had referred to the large increase in the Vote for repairs. That was because the Admiralty were working off arrears. But it was not a permanent state of things. As a matter of fact, only four ships were to be sent to private yards in the coming year; and the hon. Member would see that that expenditure was to be reduced in the coming year. The hon. Member referred to the torpedo gunboats, and pointed out that on some of these boats which had cost £65,000 when new, £50,000 had been spent in repairs. The particular duty of these gunboats was to accompany the torpedo flotilla, and it was necessary that they should have the same high speed as the torpedo flotilla. As the time had come when these torpedo gunboats had not the necessary speed, the alternative was either to build new boats or to put into the existing ones new machinery and boilers. It was suggested that new torpedo gunboats could have been built more cheaply than these were refitted. But that was not the fact. The Admiralty had now obtained what they wanted—twenty knot gunboats—and they had cost less than if they had built new ones.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was satisfactory so far as it went; but it did raise a rather alarming question that when the Committee voted £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 to build a battleship it was found that within ten years that ship was out of date, or that they had to expend large sums of money upon it. He thought it was possible on this Vote to raise a matter which was of great interest at the present time—he meant the subject of submarines.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that there was nothing on this Vote for submarines.
  MR. WHITLEYthought that the Vote covered the item for men, and shipbuilding, and the contracts for repairs and alterations. He would be surprised if the Item did not cover the Vote for the staff engaged in directing the submarines; and after the lamentable accident that had occurred the other day he thought it would be useful and desirable if the Secretary to the Admiralty could give some information to the Committee as to what steps were being taken to prevent the recurrence of such a lamentable accident. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would give some assurance of that kind; and if he did so, it would relieve a great deal of anxiety.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there was nothing to say in regard to that sad disaster. It was purely a lamentable accident; and it was unnecessary to raise it on the Motion before the House.

SUPPLY [24TH FEBRUARY].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [24TH FEBRUARY].
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1903–4.

    CLASS I.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces."
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."

    CLASS II.
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £31,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the
    440
    year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for Stationery, Printing, and Binding for the Public Service to pay the Expenses of the Stationery Office, and the Cost of Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

    CLASS III.
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
    Resolutions read a second time.
    First Resolution.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to move to reduce this Vote by £100. In Committee some discussion took place in regard to Osborne. He noticed that in the new Civil Service Estimates this. Vote had been put into an item by itself. He did not think that that was in accordance with the pledge given from the Treasury Bench twelve months ago, when the Committee was distinctly promised that it should no longer appear in the Civil Service Estimates but would be transferred to the Army and Navy Estimates, where the cost properly belonged. He wanted to ask the noble Lord in charge of these Estimates whether he could not see his way, as had been promised by the representative of the Admiralty a few days ago, to put in an amended page in the Civil Service Estimates to carry out the promise given to the Committee twelve months ago. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out '£7,300,' and insert £7,200.'"—(Mr. Whitley).
    Question proposed, "That '£7,300' stand part of the said Resolution."
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that, unfortunately, he had not by him the report of last year's debate, as he did not know the hon. Gentleman would raise the question. They had no other option than to submit the Supplementary Estimate in the manner in which

    441
    it was now before the House. As to the propriety of putting Osborne House on a separate Vote, he submitted that that question could be more properly discussed when the Estimates for 1904–5 were under consideration. The pledges which had been already given to the House on the subject would be fulfilled.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to ask whether any part of the expenditure connected with Osborne House was borne on the Votes for the Navy and the Army.
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that under Statute Osborne House was maintained by the Office of Works.
    MR. WHITLEYasked if that applied to the entire annual expenditure.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said he understood that the Secretary of State for War would have no objection to the amount spent in connection with the Army on Osborne House appearing on the Army Votes.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the noble Lord stated that by Statute the expense of Osborne House was charged
    to the Office of Works. If that were so, how was it that £60,000 was charged in the Navy Votes in connection with Osborne House. Surely the noble Lord was under some misapprehension. There appeared to be a mystery in connection with the matter which ought to be solved. A new Vote was put on the Estimates for Osborne House; and it had not been submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. The so-called explanation of the noble Lord only led to further confusion. Would the noble Lord deny that money was charged on the Navy Votes in respect of Osborne House?
    LORD BALCARRESsaid that the site of the stables had been set apart for the purposes of the Navy, but they were entirely distinct from Osborne House.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the distinction which was drawn was a very fine one. He still failed to understand why a new Vote, which was not submitted to the Public Accounts Committee, should be set up.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 148. (Division List No. 68.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Doughty, George

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Chapman, Edward

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Arrol, Sir William

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hn. Sir H

    Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Bignold, Arthur

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Bigwood, James

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Forster, Henry William

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

    Bond, Edward

    Denny, Colonel

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Brassey, Albert

    Dickinson, Robert Edmond

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bull, William James

    Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

    Garfit, William

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

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

    Russell, T. W.

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Grenfell, William Henry

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Gretton, John

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Groves, James Grimble

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Spear, John Ward

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Moore, William

    Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Helder, Augustus

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Newdegate, Francis A. N.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Tuff, Charles

    Hoult, Joseph

    Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Percy, Earl

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheff'ld

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Hunt, Rowland

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

    Randies, John S.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

    Rankin, Sir James

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Kimber, Henry

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wood, James

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Renwick, George

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

    Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L,

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Crombie, John William

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Asher, Alexander

    Cullinan, J.

    Gilhooly, James

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Hammond, John

    Bell, Richard

    Delany, William

    Harwood, George

    Black, Alexander William

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Blake, Edward

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Boland, John

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Brigg, John

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Duffy, William J.

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Dunn, Sir William

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Caldwell, James

    Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

    Joicey, Sir James

    Cameron, Robert

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, Frederick

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Field, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Kitson, Sir James

    444

    445

    Labouchere, Henry

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

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Langley, Batty

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

    Shackleton, David James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Leamy, Edmund

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

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Leng, Sir John

    O'Dowd, John

    Sheehy, David

    Levy, Maurice

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    O'Malley, William

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Lloyd-George, David

    O'Mara, James

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Lough, Thomas

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Lundon, W.

    Parrott, William

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Partington, Oswald

    Sullivan, Donal

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Tennant, Harold John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Price, Robert John

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    M'Crae, George

    Rea, Russell

    Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan Gower

    M'Fadden, Edward

    Reddy, M.

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Mooney, John J.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Rigg, Richard

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Murphy, John

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Roche, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. Wallace.

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Rose, Charles Day

    O'Brien, Partick (Kilkenny)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Bill read a second time and committed.

    Second Resolution.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid this was the first time this Vote had come upon the Estimates, and in order to give the hon. Member in charge of that Vote an opportunity of stating whether this amount covered what was to be expended or whether some further sum would be required next year, he moved that the Vote be reduced by £100.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out the sum of '£18,800,' and insert the sum of '£18,700.'"—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Question proposed, "That '£18,800' stand part of the said Resolution."
    LORD BALCARRESsaid the works which this Estimate was intended to cover was the work from the Duke of York's steps westward. The extension eastward depended on the passage of the Vote for Metropolitan Improvements which was on the Paper.
    MR. FLYNNcriticised the increase in the revised, as against the original, Estimate. He expressed the opinion that the money spent on London was too lavishly spent, and thought these Votes should be scrutinised in the closest
    446
    possible way. In this particular case he had walked over the district and had been unable to imagine even how such a sum could possibly be spent. His own idea was that the so-called improvements would be a disfigurement to the fine avenue know as the Mall. He could not see why the revised estimate should be three times the amount of the original.
    Third Resolution.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether, since the discussion on this Vote, the Secretary to the Treasury had considered the suggestion that all debates and proceedings affecting Ireland should be collected and published separately at the end of the session. The practice was adopted with regard to certain of the public Departments, and the Irish debates were kept in a separate form by the Irish Office. He understood the additional cost would be very small, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give a favourable answer.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that since the matter was discussed in Committee he had given his

    447
    attention to it. The hon. Gentleman was correct in his statement that extracts from The Debates were published at the end of the session for various Departments. The Irish Office, too, provided special volumes for themselves, but not under this Vote. He had decided to give an order that, starting at Easter, the Irish debates should be kept separate, and at the end of the session bound in the manner suggested. This would be done as an experiment for the session to see whether the separate volumes proved to be a matter of utility, and to ascertain how the proposal worked out in the matter of cost. He could not see his way, however, to distribute the copies free at the end of the session, as was done with the daily editions or ordinary volumes; that would be going much beyond the terms of the contract, but he would consult the authorities as to whether three or four copies could be placed in the Library. Many complaints were made of the increases in the Stationery Vote, but the House should note that whenever the Estimates were under discussion proposals were made involving extra expenditure. If Members required further records of the proceedings of the House—frequently of their own speeches—and alterations in the way in which The Debates were produced, he hoped they would not mind being called upon to vote the extra expenditure involved.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthanked the hon. Member for his promise, and said that if he would look into the matter he would find that the cost of supplying free copies would be very small.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmoved a reduction of £100 in order to call attention to the great delay which arose in connection with the printing of local Acts. Local Acts, until they received the Royal Assent, were printed by the various agents for the promoters, but they had then to be printed by the King's printers. The Acts had afterwards to be exceedingly carefully examined, and as the number of examiners was small great delay ensued. Either there should be more examiners, or the local Acts through all their stages should be printed at the promoters' expense by
    448
    the King's printers, instead of by private printers. Private Acts were frequently of great importance to largo local interests and to Government Departments, and complaints were constantly being made of the delay in the printing. He begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "To leave out '£31,000,' and insert '£30,900.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
    Question proposed, "That £31,000 stand part of the said Resolution."
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether the concession with regard to the binding of The Debates was to be confined to Irish questions, or whether it would extend also to Scotch and Welsh matters. It would be extremely inconvenient if Irish debates alone were to be published in a separate form, and it would also, to a great extent, complicate the proceedings of the House. The better way would be to publish separately the debates affecting the different parts of the Kingdom, and bind them in a compendious volume afterwards.
    MR. J. H. LEWISasked whether it was possible to accelerate the reporting and printing of Hansard. In this respect the British Parliament was vastly inferior to many of the Colonial Parliaments, particularly to the Canadian Parliament, every Member of which received on his breakfast table the report of the previous night's debate. If that was possible in Canada, surely something approaching thereto was possible in the Metropolis of the Empire. By the time the copy of Hansard was received, Members had lost interest in the debate of which it contained the report. About ten days elapsed before the daily parts were available, and Members who preferred the volumes had to wait from three to six weeks. He hope I the Secretary to the Treasury would endeavour to accelerate the pace at which the copies were supplied.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he would make further inquiries as to whether the issue of The Debates could be accelerated. The progress was doubtless slow, but they had the terms of the

    449
    contract to deal with. He would, however, do his best in the matter. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was apparently labouring under a misapprehension. There was no intention of making any difference in the copies now issued; the only alteration was that at the end of the session there would be issued a volume or volumes containing extracts relating to Ireland from the volumes of Hansard already published. Having made that announcement, a demand for a similar concession with regard to Scotch and Welsh deflates was immediately made. He could not give an answer on that point at once; but he would consider the matter between this and Easter. As far as the question raised by the hon. Member for Somersetshire was concerned, that had already been brought to his notice and he was doing all he could in the matter.
    MR. BLAKEthought there ought to be no difficulty whatever in regard to getting the local Acts. He agreed that the hon. Member had got himself into rather a false position by having agreed to supply the Irish debates separately.

SUPPLY [15TH MARCH].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [15TH MARCH].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTI- MATES, 1903–4.
    CLASS IV.
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £29,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."

    CLASS VI.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £197,677, be granted to His Majesty to defray, the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
    450
    year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for making good deficiencies on the Income Accounts of the Funds for Trustee Savings Banks, Friendly Societies, and Post Office Savings Banks."

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILLS.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said that this Bill was to authorise the transfer of certain powers and duties from the Home Office to the Secretary for Scotland. This transfer had been recommended by two Departmental Committees. The object of the transfer was to endeavour to create greater interest in reformatory and industrial schools, and get the local people to take more interest in their welfare. With regard to the financial part of the question, in 1896 in England the contribution from the rates to reformatories amounted to £21,486, and the Treasury contributed £62,788. In Scotland £2,105 represented the rate contribution, and the Treasury provided £11,936. It was only fair to Scotland to state that the voluntary contribution showed Scotland in a very favourable light. The voluntary contributions in Scotland amounted to £14,000, while in England they were only £16,000, showing that the work of reformatory schools was very much appreciated by those who were familiar with the work. Considering that two Departmental Committees had considered the whole question, and that the Secretary for Scotland would be able to deal with any complicated questions which arose, he trusted that the House would now agree to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time.
MR. CALDWELLsaid there was not much objection in principle to the transfer of the schools to the Secretary

451
for Scotland. As had been very rightly pointed out, the voluntary subscriptions in England were comparatively small compared with those of Scotland. When the management was placed under the Secretary for Scotland, he thought the voluntary contributions might be increased in many ways.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said there was no change to be made in the financial arrangements by the Bill. He hoped it would be the means of eliciting more interest in certain of these bodies than they had received in the past. It would make no difference at all in the relations between the Treasury and the local persons concerned in the management of the institutions.
MR. MCCRAEsaid they ought to congratulate the Secretary for Scotland on this Bill. He understood that it was merely a Bill for unifying control, and giving larger powers to the Secretary for Scotland. In Edinburgh there had been considerable difficulty between the different authorities concerned, and he hoped that what was proposed by the Bill would be a step in the direction of putting matters on a proper footing.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (FUNDS) BILL.
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped the House would have some explanation of the measure. It was before the House last year, and he had hoped that they had then made an end of it, but it had come up again. He understood that it dealt with the balance of
452
the money in connection with the establishment of Battersea Park, and that there was a provision already in existence that the money should be applied for any general metropolitan purpose. By this Bill it was to be devoted entirely to the opening up of the new roadway to Charing Cross. This was a very questionable proposal. He protested against money which ought to be available for improvements in the poorer parts of London being used for the making of a road by which ground rents would be enhanced in the wealthiest part of the Metropolis. Unless there was a good case made out for it, the House ought to pause before passing the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it appeared to him that the proposal in the Bill complied with the necessary conditions with respect to the application of the money. If there was an improvement which could be made for the whole of London, it was the one which would open up The Mall to Charing Cross, and thereby add another great artery to the Metropolis. By the provision of this additional artery enormous relief would be given to the traffic in thoroughfares where at present it was often congested. At the same time he was not sure that it would not add to the congestion at Charing Cross, and it might have been better to bring out the new road south of the Admiralty. That proposal had not been accepted and certainly, as it stood, there was no improvement which had been made in the last fifty years that would be equal to this for the relief of taffic.
MR. WHITMOREsaid the proposed improvement would benefit every part of London, and all sections of the population. He would therefore give his cordial support to the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that Battersea Park was established sixty years ago out of money given to the parish by Parliament. There was an unexpended balance out of which it was now proposed to spend £15,000 or £18,000 in opening up. The Mall into Trafalgar Square. He believed the proposed

453
application of the money complied with the conditions in regard to the balance of the fund being devoted to metropolitan improvements. The extension of The Mall from the Duke of York's Steps to Trafalgar Squire would give what would probably be one of the finest streets in the whole Metropolis. He agreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn in thinking that it would give relief to the traffic in streets which were at present congested. Another advantage of the new avenue would be that the fire brigade from Scotland Yard would have much more rapid access to that part of London between the Palace and the Duke of York's Steps than was possible under present conditions.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYagreed with the hon. Member for Battersea that this was one of the greatest improvements made of late years. He was afraid that great pressure would be brought to bear in order that it might be used for all sorts of conveyances. It formed one side of a triangle, and an enormous amount of Traffic which at present passed along Victoria Street would be diverted to this road. He suggested that consideration should be given to the question of forming a shallow subway underneath the road which could be used for tramways and other conveyances. This was a pressing matter, for if the subway was not put in now, serious damage would be done to the trees, which were being planted should the work have to be done later. Subways of the kind he suggested had been made in Paris, Budapest, New York, and other places with great advantage in the way of facilitating traffic.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,)said that the only objection that had been urged against the Bill was that from the hon. Member for West Islington, who said that the money ought to be distributed over London. He thought the Government were fully justified in taking the action they had taken in allowing the money to be applied in the way proposed. He hoped that, after the reception which the Bill had met with that afternoon,
454
Parliament would be able to pass it within a very few days, in order to allow the work to be carried on immediately and with economy. He quite admitted that the question raised by the hon. Member for Islington was most important, but he was afraid the. Treasury would not be justified in asking Parliament to spend another very large sum on a work which had already cost so much.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid he understood that the money was invested in Consols. Was £18,000 the present value, or was it the value when the money was invested?
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he understood that it was the present value; and he believed it was estimated that that would be the amount required.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid that something should be done to divert from the principal streets, in daylight, unseemly traffic such as large vans containing dead meat, hides, soda bottles, and the like.
And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. Speaker left the Chair until this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  AMERSHAM, BEACONSFIELD, AND DIS- TRICT WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  MR. GRENFELLsaid that the only question in connection with the Bill was as to which of two competing companies should supply the district mentioned with water. The Amersham Company had the support of every local authority concerned, including the Buckinghamshire County

  455
  Council. He, therefore, hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Reading.

IRISH RIVERS (DRAINAGE).
MR. MACVEAGHsaid that for the second time this session the fortunes of the ballot were kind to him. He was made the recipient of numerous congratulations on his good luck, but the subject allotted to him by his colleagues was of such a complex and intricate character that he fancied the congratulations of the older hands must have been marked by a tone of gentle sarcasm, for he found that it was involved in an almost inextricable mass of absolutely incomprehensible Acts of Parliament. He had never before had an extravagantly high opinion of the gentlemen of the long robe, as they were called, but he confessed that if he ever came across a lawyer who could make head or tail of the almost innumerable Irish Drainage Acts, he should be compelled to regard him with respectful awe and admiration. These Acts surpassed all understanding, legal or otherwise, and he pitied the lawyer who had to answer any question concerning them. The amount of money squandered on this matter by English Departments in Ire-and—generally in open defiance of the advice of the people most concerned—was simply astounding; and he could not help thinking that more good would have been done if the Government had thrown a cheque for a hundred guineas at the head of some unoffending lawyer and asked him to bury himself for a month in these musty and contradictory Acts of Parliament, and evolve from the chaos one Act consolidating all of them, deleting the obsolete clauses and making uniform regulations for future action. Or, if they did not want to be reckless in their expenditure, they might give the Attorney-General a Parliamentary holiday for a month and let him try his hand at the work, and, painful though the wrench would be of parting for even a short time from the genial and learned Gentleman,
456
they on the Irish Benches would, under the circumstances, do their best to sustain the bereavement with equanimity.
The subject with which he had to deal was, he admitted, of a technical character, and, except to those most concerned, uninteresting, but it was none the less important. The position was briefly this—thousands upon thousands of acres of the best land in Ireland were every year covered by a waste of waters. That involved from year to year an enormous financial loss; and although the magnitude of the evil had been impressed on successive Governments for nearly half a century, practically nothing had been done to abate it. Money had no doubt been spent, but it had been spent in such an erratic manner and on such ill-conceived schemes that the grievance was greater to-day than ever it was. The trouble arose from the neglect to efficiently drain the valleys of the rivers, or dredge or deepen the river beds; and if a proper scheme were put into effect the result would be not only to save the enormous quantity of property which was annually destroyed, but also to reclaim some of the finest land in the country, which was now lying waste. The only agent they at present had for absorbing the surplus water was the sun, which happily was not within the Government's sphere of influence; but what the sun took by evaporation it unfortunately returned in the form of rain, and its influence, like that of the Government, was, therefore, not entirely beneficent. It was certain that the solution of this problem would have an important effect on the climatic conditions of the country, besides increasing the area of cultivation and saving huge sums of money to the farmers interested, and it was a problem which modern engineering could easily solve.
The difficulty was so far-reaching and affected so many districts that he contended it would be absurd to attempt to deal with it in isolated cases. The question should be taken in hand not in part, but as a whole, and until that was done it was hopeless to expect that any material relief would be effected. The drainage was at present under the supervision of the Board of Works, of which it was safe to say that no Department of Dublin Castle was more utterly incompetent or more hopelessly out of touch with the wishes of the people who interests it

457
was supposed to watch. The local management was in some cases in the hands of some mysterious entities called drainage boards, but where the authority of these bodies began and where it ended nobody in Ireland precisely knew. How they were ejected, or when, or by whom, or under what qualifications, was a veritable Chinese puzzle to everybody except the landlords, and the whole affair was a most instructive illustration of the imbecile character of this country's government of Irish affairs. Like the Board of so-called National Education and the Dublin Port and Docks Board, these mysterious drainage boards were responsible to nobody, they published no accounts, and all the people knew about them was that they had to pay the bill for all the vagaries of these bodies.
Consider the case of the Bann, of which so much had been heard, and on at least this branch of the question he thought he could bespeak the support of all the Ulster Unionists. He hoped to have, at least, the support of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for North Armagh, because he noticed in October last year that he said at a public meeting that the feeling in Lurgan was so strong about this drainage business that if the flooding was not stopped before the general election, his constituents would probably throw him into Lough Neagh. He also noted—for he was a diligent student of his speeches—that he said he was henceforth going to fight with his gloves off, and that lie meant business.
He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be as heroic and warlike to-night as he was on a Portadown platform, and that he would not put on his gloves again merely because the Chief Secretary, in a brilliant flash of humour, had invited the pooll farmers along the river banks to subscribe £50,000 towards the cost of the work. The Chief Secretary might as well have been a whole-hogger, when he was at it, and have asked them for £5,000,000, for he would be just as likely to get it. The £1,000 mentioned in the Development Grant was only a mockery, an election bribe. The Chief Secretary called it a "token-offering," but he preferred to regard it as a peace-offering to the electors of North Armagh, to persuade them not to throw their Member into Lough Neagh—at least, until after the next general
458
election. Already those constituents were in revolt against the drainage tax, and were threatening to become passive resisters, and unless something serious was done they would be bidding open defiance to law and order, and causing pain and anguish in the heart of their representative. The grant from the Development Fund was nothing less than a farce, for the condition attached was an impossible one; but, quite irrespective of that fact, the question of the drainage of Irish rivers should be dealt with as a whole, and not in fragments. The story of the Bann drainage was an amazing record of mismanagement and muddle. The Board of Works started on the present scheme in 1846. They promised to complete it in three years, but it actually took them twelve years to execute it; and the cost, which this intelligent Board estimated at £109,000, amounted to £150,000. The district paid back in capital and interest £166,000, and all they had for it was a colossal monument of official stupidity and incapacity. The Royal Commission of 1887 ascribed the trouble to an engineering miscalculation, aggravated by defective construction; and since then the people had had to contemplate from year to year the submerging of large tracts of land under cultivation, the carrying away of the crops, the souring of the lands, and the destruction of the peat fuel, on which they depended for their winter firing. The people were thus reduced to poverty, and their health undermined. One of the local dispensary medical officers had put it on record that he had frequently seen whole families driven from their homes to take shelter on higher ground, who returned as soon as the waters subsided, and it could be easily imagined what the state of their health must be when they had to walk on wet and muddy floors, sleep in damp rooms, and breathe air impregnated with the effluvia from decaying and decomposing vegetable matter. The flooded area extended over portions of five counties, and the residents in the flooded lands were to this day taxed for the abortive drainage scheme. Simultaneously with the construction of the drainage works a system of inland navigation was established on the Lower Bann, at a cost of £104,000. The people were taxed for this as well, and it also had proved a

459
complete failure. The people were not responsible for these blunders; and it was mocking the sufferers to ask them, after having wrung from them more than the whole cost of those blunders, to contribute to the cost of correcting them.
Another case was that of the Owenmore, the flooding of which affects three rural districts in county Sligo. That particular case had been engaging the attention of the Board of Works since 1847, and it was to-day in the same position that it occupied fifty-seven years ago. He would not attempt to recount all the inquiries, plans, and estimates that had been showered in liberal profusion upon this unhappy district; but he should probably be within the mark if he said that if half of their cost had been devoted to a practical effort to remedy the evil it might have been settled in 1848. The amount required was estimated in 1896 at £6,000, and the Government then promised to help; but that Government went out, and from then till now the Treasury could not afford such a colossal sum. The Treasury could find millions to squander on mad hunts after every new Mad Mullah that bobbed up in Somaliland, and they were not a bit disconcerted if they got no return but the capture of the Mullah's mother-in-law. The Treasury was satisfied, and if she was like the other mothers-in-law that we read of, the Mullah is probably equally satisfied; but the spending of £6,000 in the draining of the Owenmore was not to be thought of. Yet in this district about 5,000 acres of meadow, pasture, and tillage were every year laid waste, and over 600 families were injuriously affected by the flooding of their property—property for which they had to pay in judicial rents over ten shillings an acre.
The Suck was an important river, running through the counties of Galway and Roscommon. Drainage works were started there some years ago by the Board of Works; with a local drainage board, composed entirely of the landlords of the district. Very large sums were wasted by engineers under the two bodies, but the occupiers were not consulted, and were in no way responsible. The muddle became a scandal when, after some years, the funds at the disposal of the drainage board were exhausted, and they came to
460
Parliament for further borrowing powers. It then became a question of continuing the extravagance, in the hope of preventing what was already spent from being entirely wasted, but the representatives of the counties concerned in this House opposed the proposals unless some popular representation was given on the local board and they succeeded in procuring a joint representation of owners and occupiers. This reform, however, came too late to be of real service, but from the date of the introduction of the popular element, corruption, extravagance, and jobbery ceased. So heavy and impossible had meantime become the burden that the Government felt constrained to give a free grant; but in the end this went to the relief of the responsibilities of the landlords. The ratepayers in the catchment area in Galway and Roscommon were now paying 2d. in the £ in the first place, and 1d. in the £ in the second; and, in addition, the occupiers in what is called the improvement area had had an assessment put upon them. These occupiers were to pay only for the actual improvement, and it was against the award of the arbitrator that they protested. It actually exceeded in many cases the rent of the holding, and in at least one case it amounted to £2 an acre, being much in excess of the rent of any land in the district. It might be added that, owing to the nature of the soil, there were along this river—as in the case also of the Barrow—instances in which the alleged drainage works had actually done great injury to the land—he referred to Callow Meadow, which was of a rich marly substance, but which was dried up, and rendered entirely unproductive, but even on this a high charge had been put. Surely the people of this district were entitled to ask for at least an extension of the time of repayment and a reduction of the annuity? But this had been denied them, and they now found that failure awaited them, and that they would have to give up their farms unless some measure of relief was afforded to them.
Let the House consider for a moment the case of the Barrow, which was the natural drain of the largest and highest table-land in Ireland. This river was navigable for boats of a carrying power of

461
fifty tons, from the Grand Canal Junction at Athy to the tidal lock at St. Mullin's, a distance of over thirty miles. The Irish Parliament erected about twenty lock-and weirs, and then constituted the Bars row Navigation Company, to whom they transferred the custody and control of the river. This company were bound by charter to keep the works in repair, and to keep four feet six inches of water in the bed of the river. For sixty years two dredgers were kept working to effect this object, but since 1860 the practice had been discontinued. The river was therefore being steadily choked up, with the result that for part of the year the carrying power of the boats was reduced by half, and with the further result that in the upper reaches of the river the lands adjoining were much injured from flooding and from want of drainage. Great damage was also being done to the towns of Athy, Monasterevan, Portarlington, and Mountmellick, whilst the general health of the whole district was being most seriously affected.
He would point out that the present position, both on the Barrow and along the other rivers, was most injurious to the interests of the landlords, as well as of the tenants, and only a couple of days ago he had a letter from a local landlord, Mr. Gore Ryder, in which he wrote that, owing to the annually increasing devastation caused by the Barrow, one of his meadows, which within living memory brought £90 a year, and which within the last ten years realised £43, afforded last year only £16. In his own interests and in the interests of his tenants—most of whom had grown accustomed to from one foot to three feet of water on their lands and in their houses—he looked upon the present state of the Barrow as absolutely scandalous. From an economic point of view, the expenditure of some £250,000 would in his opinion, afford to the riparian landowners and tenants on the Barrow results equally valuable to those which the great Nile dam had done for the Egyptians, which cost over £2,000,000. The Blackwater, in Waterford, was also subject to great danger. Embankments had to be maintained, and when the slightest breach was made in one of these large tracts of land were flooded.
462
The landlords and tenants in most cases had agreements with reference to the maintenance and repair of these embankments; and he had been informed by the hon. Member for West Waterford that in connection with recent negotiations for the sale of some estates adjoining the Blackwater, it had proved to be an almost insuperable difficulty in the way of coming to terms that the tenant would, after purchase, be responsible for that part of the embankment adjoining his holding—a responsibility which he would not lightly undertake, and would want to have shared with other tenants whose farms would be liable to be flooded, even when situate a quarter of a mile away from the scene of the breach of the embankment. In such cases, therefore, the tenants desiring to purchase their holdings had to make a bargain not only with the landlord but also with their fellow tenants—a bargain based on considerations of risk of loss which it was impossible to apportion. This condition of affairs applied, of course, to tenants along the banks of all the rivers from which complaints had come. In no country that he knew of was such difficulty experienced in obtaining public money for such necessary works. Every nation except Great Britain recognised the importance of the subject, and spent lavish sums on it. Hungary, for example, had spent on the regulation of its rivers during the past quarter of a century no less than £22,000,000; Belgium, in the same time, £16,000,000; and France over £30,000,000. Germany had devoted £15,000,000, in nine years, to the same purpose; Holland over £15,000,000, and so en in every European country. These works were executed at national cost, and the rivers were nearly all free from tolls, with the double result that complaints of flooding were almost unknown, and a tremendous impetus had been given to the development of commerce and industry. Why was Ireland alone handicapped in the march of nations?
He might say much about the neglect of the canals of Ireland, some of which were commenced generations ago, and had never been finished, and others of which were now lying useless and derelict; but if he were to do so he might help to complicate the passive question

463
of transit with the active one of flooding. It might, however, be said with certainty that if a Frenchman, or a German, or a Belgian, or even a Sandwich Islander, examined the Irish canal question, he would be absolutely amazed at the stupidity of a system of Government under which such disgraceful results were possible.
It was one of the blessings of foreign rule in Ireland that we never got a Chief Secretary who had the slightest practical knowledge, or even impractical knowledge, of questions so closely bound up with the prosperity of the people. They heard a lot now-a-days about dumping, but they had been accustomed to the operation for generations, for had not administrator's who know nothing about Ireland and cared less been dumped down amongst them in profusion? These benevolent Britishers came over, knowing absolutely nothing about the needs of the people, but in three months they claimed to know more about what the country wanted than the country knew itself. They strutted for a brief time on the Irish political stage, taking no interest in the work except in so far as it could serve them as a stepping stone to higher things. Occasionally the benevolent gentleman who was dumped down was intelligent, but no sooner had he applied himself to the problems of Irish Government than his studies were cut short by a general election, or a reconstruction of the Cabinet, or some other incident in English politics, and then another Englishman was sent over, and the same process was again gone through. He had only read of two Englishmen who had ever shown the faintest conception of the vast importance of this question. One was Lord Randolph Churchill, who made it one of the planks of the Tory platform for Ireland, who tackled the problem with sympathy and courage, and who—had the opportunity remained to him—would probably have educated his Party on this subject as he educated them on others. The other reformer was the present Prime Minister, who introduced several Bills dealing with it, but who was promoted to another sphere before his efforts had had time to fructify.
He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions which might help to clear the air. First, did the Government intend to take any serious
464
step to cope with the evil all over Ireland—to drain where drainage was necessary and to relieve taxation where it had become oppressive? Secondly, could nothing be done to sweep away the effete and incompetent Board of Works, or, at least, to reform its constitution? He was afraid the sweeping out of the Augean stables of this antiquated institution would be a task even more herculean than that of reforming the War Office, but it would be worth trying. Third, would steps be taken to secure on the local drainage boards the representation of local elective bodies? And fourth, would the Government frankly accept the view of every civilised country, and treat the whole question of drainage as an Imperial and not, either in part, or in whole, as a local responsibility? The whole subject was one of vast importance to the health, comfort, and welfare of thousands of families, and to the prosperity of the whole country, and he hoped they might have some indication that the Government was fully alive to that fact. He begged to move—"That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to at once institute a scheme for the effective drainage, dredging, and improvement of the inland waterways of Ireland; and that in view of the great loss sustained, owing to floods from year to year, by farmers whose holdings are situated near the rivers, and the excessive taxation arising from ill-conceived schemes, this House strongly censures the, Government for its persistent neglect to take steps to abate the evil."
MR. KILBRIDEdesired to associate himself entirely with the hon. Member for South Down in the Questions he had put to the Government—Was it intended to treat this question of the drainage of the rivers of Ireland as a whole: would it be dealt with as a national and not a local question? Were the muddles of the past to be repeated? Was each locality to be left to shift for itself with utterly inadequate assistance from the Government? He would like to say a few words as to the drainage of the Barrow. The people of his and adjoining constituencies had never been granted a shilling of public money to secure the abatement of the great

465
nuisance of flooding. The Barrow probably drained a larger area than any other river in Ireland. Its drainage area covered 480,000 acres and 46,000 were flooded at intervals. They had that fact on the authority of a Commission which sat eighteen years ago. Since then the condition of affairs, bad as it then was, had considerably worsened; year by year the bed of the river was silting up and the area of country subject to flooding was extending. The drainage of the Barrow was a somewhat historic question, as the right hon. Gentleman well knew. The Irish Parliament more than once had it under consideration, and steps were taken to make a portion of the river more navigable, but a scheme for the improvement of the upper reaches hung fire. In the early days of the Union Irishmen were promised that the Imperial Parliament would do everything for Ireland that a home Parliament could do, but in this respect anticipations had not been realised, and the House of Commons had done absolutely nothing to relieve the scandalous state of affairs which existed in that part of Ireland. In 1884 and 1889 the present Leader of the House introduced Bills for the drainage of the Barrow, and it was proposed to give a large grant of public money and a free grant towards the drainage of the Barrow. But later they were told that the financial pressure on the Treasury was such that it was not possible to make the grant, and that even if it were made the locality benefited would have to make itself responsible for the interest on the money advanced. Under that scheme there were two areas of taxation—the improvement area and the catchment area—and to his mind it was perfect nonsense to expect either landlords or tenants, ten or twelve miles from the scene of the flooding, although within the catchment area, to tax themselves for the benefit of those who were directly advantaged.
The work of drainage ought to be undertaken, if only for sanitary reasons, for the flooding gave rise to much malarial fever. The flooding, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman, was largely due to the artificial obstructions which had been erected on the river. For instance, a weir had been constructed half a mile
466
above Croomaboo Bridge, with the result that the natural sluggishness of the river had been increased. The removal of that weir would do much to facilitate the dredging and scouring the bed of the river. Of course, the mill-owner would suffer, but no one would desire that any injury should be inflicted on him, and he should accordingly be compensated. The extent of the flooding was serious, and he had himself known it possible to row across seven miles of cultivated land. Such a state of affairs would not be allowed to continue in any other country in the world. Nothing whatever had been done, either by private enterprise or by public money, and the condition of the Barrow district was worse than it was 100 years ago. Few Irish landlords had the necessary funds, and those who had, preferred to invest their money in other directions than the improvement of their property, while, naturally, no occupier would incur the expenditure with the knowledge that neither he nor his successors would retain the advantage of the improvement. He hoped that on this occasion the Chief Secretary would give something more than sympathy, and that the matter would receive the practical consideration of the Government. He begged to second the Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government to at once institute a scheme for the effective drainage, dredging, and improvement of the inland waterways of Ireland; and that in view of the great loss sustained, owing to floods from year to year, by owners and occupiers of property near the rivers, and the excessive taxation arising from ill-conceived schemes, this House strongly censures the Government for its persistent neglect to take steps to abate the evil."—(Mr. MacVeagh.)
COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he agreed with a good deal of what had been said by the two previous speakers. For his part he should be very much pleased if the position and condition of the British Exchequer permitted the Chief Secretary to bring forward a wide and generous scheme for improving the drainage and navigation all over

467
Ireland. But he was not blind to the monetary condition of the British Exchequer, and, of course, it would be an Utopian idea to conceive that the Government would propose at the present juncture of affairs a great scheme for improving the navigation and drainage of Ireland, which would probably cost from £15,000,000 to £20,000,000. He had had hopes that even with the means at the disposal of the Government they would have had something done. He took considerable interest in the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. Rightly or wrongly he conceived that Ireland was not fairly treated on the subject, and when the Equivalent Grant was given to Ireland he thought the House had gone, not altogether as far as he wished, but at any rate a considerable distance. The Equivalent Grant and the Development Grant meant the same thing. This money was not given as a gift or as a sort of charity. It was Ireland's right absolutely, and as they paid for it in taxes they had a just claim upon the Exchequer of this country to deal with them in the same way as it dealt with England. He thought the Equivalent Grant—and he spoke, he thought, for hon. Members opposite—would have become to Irish Members on both sides a sort of happy hunting ground from which they could get, from time to time, the game that would give a feast to all classes in Ireland that required it. But he had made a discovery. That happy hunting ground had been made a poaching ground. The Chief Secretary was, no doubt, entirely in sympathy with the Irish people and would, if he could, act generously towards them, but there was a shadow behind him that obscured and defeated the right hon. Gentlemen's emotions of sympathy and generosity. They ought to have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that debate. That right hon. Gentleman was run dry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had established a claim on this Grant, because £75,000 of this £185,000 was devoted to securing the Treasury against loss in carrying out the Land Purchase Act. Not only, apparently, did the Treasury demand their pound of flesh but they wanted a large margin besides, so that under no possibly conceivable circumstances could the Treasury suffer
468
any loss. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was new to his office, and, although a man of conspicuous ability, must depend more or less upon his subordinates. So far as he could make out these extra securities demanded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with this Equivalent Grant, were probably suggested by some permanent officials. He had always found the Chief Secretary most sympathetic, but they could not live on sympathy. If he were hungry he would rather have a mutton chop than all the sympathy in the world. What they wanted was not only sympathy but money. The Chief Secretary said the other night it would be a very good thing if he and future Irish Secretaries could confer in public on this question of the Equivalent or Development Grant with Irish Members in the British House of Commons. He thought that was very wise. Sometimes Irishmen should bury the hatchet. On the present occasion the Irish Members were going to act together and fight the battle of the Bann. It ought to be a perfect Irish Assembly, because they had a statesman at the head of Irish affairs who knew more about them than the ordinary British statesman. But whether they agreed with the Chief Secretary, or whether they argued with him it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were fighting, and he was not present.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: A good Home Rule argument.
COLONEL SAUNDERSONdid not agree that it was a Home Rule argument. If Ireland had Home Rule, there would be no Development Grant, the Bann would not be drained, and he had grave doubts as to the condition of the Irish Exchequer. For eighteen years he had been pressing this subject, but had never succeeded in netting from any British Government anything but sympathy. Sympathy would not drain the Bann, and he thought the time had come when they should tell the Government that their patience was exhausted. No doubt the case of the Barrow deserved attention, but he believed there was no area in Ireland which had such a claim on the assistance of the Government as that of the Bann and Lough Neagh. His constituents

469
had a special claim on the Government, because they had paid £166,000 for a scheme of drainage that had not been carried out, and their fields near the Bann and Lough Neagh, instead of being flooded to the depth of 1ft. 6in., were now flooded, during seven months of the year, to the depth of 2ft. 6in. That was a method of draining which might exist in Ireland, but it would not be tolerated in any other country in the world.
Hon. Members from England generally left a debate of this kind to the Irish Members. It was the same during a Scotch debate, when matters were left to the Scotch Members simply because English and Irish Members did not understand Scottish affairs. In this case Irish Members appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to see if he could not do something more than he had promised. They had a right to something more. The Chief Secretary had promised £50,000 to these farmers if they would provide another £50,000, but he might as well have put the amount at £1,000,000. His right hon. friend had said that he hoped that the drainage might be carried out under more auspicious circumstances when the money market was not so tight, and when probably better terms would be offered. He thought, if the Chief Secretary had asked the farmers to provide one-third, something might be done in the matter, but after spending £166,000 for nothing and having been drained only in a matter of money, was it not natural that these men who had suffered so many years should now be in a state of the utmost exasperation. He wished his right hon. friend had seen the necessity of sending for the Chancellor of the Exchquer, who ought to take the responsibility in this matter. The responsibility for withholding from Ireland the assistance which justice demanded was a responsibility which he should be very sorry to have upon his shoulders. Upon this occasion Irishmen were united on the ground that this was a claim made upon the Government which every right-thinking man could clearly see was a demand based upon absolute and simple justice.
MR. HAYDENsaid this was not the first but the fourth
470
time, this session that the scene had been presented to the House of an absolutely united Ireland upon an Irish question. They saw now the kind of questions pressing for settlement that would come before an Irish Parliament, and which all parties in Ireland would insist upon having settled, and which for years and years they had been asking this House of Commons to arrange. Here they were considering this question with practically only the Irish Members present and the representatives of the Government, but when this debate came to a close it would not be decided by the Irish Members but by the predominant Party, which would send its representatives into the lobby to vote upon matters upon which they had not heard a single argument and who would vote in perfect ignorance upon this question. He was concerned principally in regard to the River Suck which had been referred to by his hon. friend. The General Drainage Act was passed in 1863, and under that Act a Provisional Order was passed in 1878 constituting the district around the River Suck a drainage district. Under that Order powers were given to a drainage board, which consisted entirely of the landlords of the district, and six years were claimed for and given to this board in which to carry out the drainage. At the end of six years it was found that very little of the work had been done, and another period of three years was given to this board. Further periods were given, altogether for five successive times, and in 1895 the work was finished. Then this board came up for a private Act to seek for an extension of time and power to borrow, and at the end of that period it was found that £172,000 had been spent upon the drainage of the district. Many of those living in his constituency had told him that their land had been in no way improved by this expenditure, but, on the contrary, it had been deteriorated. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to send some impartial person down to this district in order to investigate the matter. The question reached such a pass at one time that there was a danger of the tenants being absolutely ruined if they went on with the works, and in consequence of this the Government were induced to give a grant of £50,000.

471
This grant did not in the slightest degree relieve any of the tenants in the district, and whatever relief it did afford went to the landlords. When the money was all spent an arbitrator or valuer was appointed by the Board of Works to inspect the lands in the improved area. The ratepayers agreed to pay 1d. in the £ in the County of Roscommon and 2d. in the county of Galway, and they had made that contribution ever since 1895. The complaint he made was that the charge upon individual holders of land was grossly unjust and excessive, and arose entirely from the fact that the valuer did not properly value the improvements in the district. Anyone acquainted with the land in the west of Ireland knew that those charges were excessive. Case after case had been produced, showing that the improvements which were supposed to have been carried out by the drainage had cost £10, £12, and £16 an acre. He knew one small farmer who bought out his land before the drainage scheme, who was paying £2 an acre on account of the drainage, which included the amount put upon him as owner and occupier. The general amount seemed to be 10s. and 12s. an acre for the land in the River Suck district.
He knew that the Chief Secretary had been near the River Suck, and although he might not be an expert upon land he knew that land in that district, which was rented at 10s. or 12s. an acre, was often supposed to be rack-rented. Here there was a tax on it for drainage and supposed improvements of 10s. or 12s. an acre, and the people in the district would not be able much longer to stand it although they had honestly tried to carry out arrangements which had been made on their behalf but without their authority. Not long ago a deputation of the ratepayers waited on Sir Antony MacDonald and put forward a very modest request. They simply asked that the interest on the instalment should be reduced, and the amount of the sinking fund and the period for repayment should be extended upon the basis of the terms upon which money would be advanced under the Land Act. That was a very modest claim, and under the Land Act money was advanced at 2¾ per cent.
472
interest and ½ per cent. upon the sinking fund. What was the interest charged to the unfortunate owners of land in this district? They were charged as interest as high as interest and Sinking Fund under the Land Act, namely, 3¼ per cent. The present state of the money market did not affect this matter, which was a mere affair of bookkeeping. This money had already been borrowed on favourable rates, and therefore the Treasury could not lose anything by complying with the request of these ratepayers. Instead of asking for a reduction in the annuity and an extension of the period for repayment, they should have asked for a total or partial remission of the tax altogether. Not only were Irish Members agreed upon this point, but the landlords and the tenants were equally agreed in making this request to the Government. It had been sneeringly remarked occasionally in this House that Irish Members could not agree upon anything, but he would remind hon. Members that they had come to an agreement in regard to such a question as this and town tenants. All he asked for was that the Government should keep their promise and do, in this House, everything that an Irish Parliament would be able to do for Ireland. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter early consideration. It was a matter which was pressing strongly in the district. Farmer after farmer had told him that they would not be able to live in the district, and would have to clear out because they could not continue paying the rent and this tax, and he believed this state of things was absolutely true. All along the improvement area of the two counties of Roscommon and Galway this state of things was preventing the operation of the Land Purchase Act, because neither landlords nor tenants could afford to sell or buy whilst this tax was being imposed upon them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do his utmost to concede some relief to the people who were crying out against what they believed to be a great and pressing injustice which was preventing them from acquiring the land they cultivated.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he did not claim to have an intimate

473
knowledge of the various drainage areas which had been spoken of by hon. Members opposite, but he did claim to possess an intimate knowledge of the drainage of the Bann and Lough Neagh, and he intended to confine his remarks entirely to Lough Neagh and the drainage of the Bann. He contended that the question of drainage was more pressing in connection with the Bann and Lough Neagh than in any of the cases which had been cited by Nationalist Members. In spite of all they had heard from the other side of the House he held that the area comprised in the drainage system of the Bann was very much larger than any other drainage system in Ireland. ["No, no!"] At any rate it was one of the largest, and it was an area in which there was infinitely more damage done by floods, annually, and more human suffering caused, annually in this way, than in any other flooded area in Ireland. This question of the Bann drainage was a very old one. Apparently redress was not obtained then, and the people now were in the unfortunate position of being worse off in this respect than those of 150 years ago. He did not object to any of the claims put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were all part and parcel of the same scheme for the arterial drainage of Ireland. The question of the Bann was seriously taken in hand in 1847 by the Government, and works were started which, it was hoped, would afford a remedy, but for some reason or another the system failed. Various reasons had been given for the failure. The work entailed a cost of 30 or 40 per cent. more than the original estimate. Instead of coating £90,000, it cost over £150,000, and the works, instead of being carried out in three years, as was expected, extended over twelve years. Finally, the persons affected by this drainage scheme had to pay £166,000. If that work had been properly carried out originally, he did not suppose the people would particularly object to pay this extra sum, but for some reason—he did not undertake to say where the fault lay—the works had not been successful, and at present the state of affairs was infinitely worse than it ever was before.
This was a matter in which the constituency he represented was greatly in-
474
terested. At the time of his election, a year ago, he traversed that stretch of country and saw for himself the extraordinary amount of damage that was done, and, after all, the damage was a small matter compared with the absolute human misery caused by the floods. He had visited house after house where the marks on the walls plainly indicated that the water had been nine inches above the floors, and he had seen men and women whose hands were twisted with rheumatism, and who were bedridden owing to the floods. Having seen these things, he was sure that the House would not wonder that he felt strongly on the subject. He contended that this was a state of things which should not exist in any civilised land. The constituencies which directly suffered from it had a very good case, and he would have no hesitation in voting against the Government to-night unless the Chief Secretary gave a satisfactory assurance on the subject. He was afraid the action of the people of the North had been too pacific. The Unionist Members who represented constituencies in the North of Ireland, which were chiefly affected, had been bringing this matter before the Government for the past eighteen years, and at the end of that time they were no further forward. This state of affairs could not continue, and something must be done. They had loyally supported the Government, and he thought it was time that some return was made to them. The Government seemed to have taken up the position that the Party to which he belonged were compelled by circumstances to be loyal to them. He did not ask for anything unreasonable or for any payment for their loyalty. He only asked for ordinary fairness when he asked that the Government should take some steps to remedy the state of things to which he had called attention.
MR. O'DOWDsaid he wished to advocate the claims of the river Owenmore in county Sligo. It was not a navigable river. They had been agitating for many years in regard to the drainage of this river, but they seemed to be as far off from success to-day as when they commenced. In 1847 a claim was made by all classes in the county for

475
the drainage of the river, and it was considered by the Government of the day, but afterwards shelved. Other claims had been put forward since then and still nothing had been done. The position of affairs in regard to the river was this. There was periodical flooding, and one day's rain was sufficient to cause floods that destroyed thousands of pounds worth of property. This was an annual occurrence, and last year, owing to the exceptionally wet season, the damage done was something horrible. It exceeded anything in living memory. Judicial rents of 10s. to 15s. an acre had been fixed for land, which was liable to be submerged, and it sometimes happened that thousands of acres were rendered as useless by the floods as if they were at the bottom of the sea. It might be said that Sligo was divided into four rural districts, and that three of these were affected by the flooding of the river. Although many demands had been made on the Treasury for help during the past sixty years, there had never been a single penny of Government money spent on the necessary work. He urged that some consideration should be given to the claim now put forward. In 1847 it was estimated by the county surveyor that £8,000 would be sufficient to carry out a drainage scheme, which would serve 8,000 acres. The work could not be done for that sum now, because labour was both scarcer and dearer, but it was safe to say that £10,000 would be sufficient for the purpose. He knew farmers who last year, lost their crops of hay and oats by the floods, and who, in consequence had to sell their cattle to pay the rents which fell due in November. The rents were exacted by all the landlords with one honourable exception, and that was Sir Josslyn Gore Booth. That gentleman
476
was a Unionist, and he was glad to mention him as one who recognised his duty to his tenantry in the position of affairs then existing. He agreed to forego a year's rent. The hon. Member understood that an inspection of the river had been made on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would state the nature of the report received on the subject. The drainage of the river would do infinitely more for the people of the locality than the Land Act would do in twenty years.
MR. ROCHEsaid this was a matter of the utmost importance to his constituents; in fact the existence of many of them depended on it. £172,802 9s. 8d. had been expended in the effort to drain the Suck Valley. Of that sum £50,000 was a free grant, £13,000 was secured upon the county cess of the baronies and townlands in the contributory area, as provided by the Act of 1889, and the residue, viz., £109,802 9s. 8d. was advanced by the Commission from time to time byway of loan to be repaid. When the work was first instituted, the Government appointed a board consisting mainly of landlords and agents, but until the people and tenants were represented on that board large sums of money were wasted. One illustration of the waste was that dredges were built at the cost of £1,000 to assist in draining the river valley, but they were never used, and after a time were sold for old iron. He would quote a few cases of tenants in the immediate neighbourhood of the river. Patrick J. Green wrote from Ballina-sloe—
"I hold from the hon. Lord Clonbrock a farm of 487 statute acres. My rent is £345,

477
valuation £226, river Suck charges £79 7s. and ordinary taxes £36. By adding the Suck charges and taxes to the rent it makes £460 7s. per year, or 100 per cent. over the valuation. Unfortunately nearly all ray land adjoins the river Suck, and last year it was ruinous to all the people living in the vicinity. I sold in July last all my callow meadows, and they came to £172. The following week the weather got had, floods set in, and remained on and off for six weeks, with the result that all the hay was nearly swept away by the Hoods, or rotted on the land. I had to offer a reduction of from 15 to 50 per cent. and even snore in some cases (although I would not get one penny reduction myself from the landlord) to try and induce the people who bought the hay to clear off the lots, as otherwise the meadows would be unsaleable next year. And up to the present I have not received one penny, and it is questionable if I will be able to collect £50. I am contractor to the Ballinasloe Asylum for milk, and at the time of the floods I had to sell my two-year-old cattle to make place for my cows, at any price, and they left me a profit of only 12s. 6d. each for six months' feeding. They had to go because the land for the cows was under water and I had no place for them. All this flooding is caused by the incomplete state of the Suck drainage, which has ruined a great portion of the land and left it valueless as regards the hay crop. The Board of Works states that the improvement is equal to the charge on the lands affected, and in that case the tenant, when getting a fair rent fixed, should be allowed for it under the heading of 'Improvements,' but the Land Commission says it is not equal to the charge, and between the two, the poor tenant comes to the ground. For instance, my second-term rent was fixed in December last, and although I should be allowed £80 under the heading of 'Improvements,' according to the award book, for Suck drainage, I was only allowed £43 by the Land Commission. This is a question that should be gone into, for if the Land Commission is right, the Board of Works has £36 per year for the past nine years belonging to me."
Another case was that of Mistress Andrew Manning, whose holding was sixteen acres, three roods and ten perches. She had to pay £177 8s. total charge which entailed an annuity of £719s. That very day he had received from his constituency a letter containing a list of tenants and the amount of Suck drainage charges they had to pay. He would
478
quote a few. Bernard Beraghty had two acres; rent £1; Suck charge £3 2s. John Kelly had one acre; rent 10s.; Suck charge £1 10s. John Crowe had one acre and a quarter; rent 12s.; Suck charge £1 12s. Bridget Kenny had twelve acres; rent £11 1s.; Suck charge £12 5s. Michael Loughan had seven acres; rent £6 5s.; Suck charge £9 10s. 6d. Sir Anthony McDonnell recently, replying to a letter in regard to a deputation of charge-payers under the Suck Drainage Scheme, said that—
"The only scheme of relief which the Government could, with any chance of success, urge upon the Treasury would he a prolongation of the term for repayment, with a corresponding diminution in the rate of the annual charge. To effect even this limited relief, legislation would be necessary, and it is improbable that such legislation could be restricted to the case of the Suck."
He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give serious consideration to the case he had presented, and if the tenants could not be relieved from the tax altogether, it should be spread over a larger number of years. I have been informed that Mr. Martin, who was employed as the Government valuer, at the time of the award, swore at the Land Court in Athlone only the other day, when the tenants sought relief in the Land Court, that in many cases the drainage had been an injury instead of an improvement.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said that a great many requests had been made in the course of the evening, some of them of a practical character, involving a large expenditure of public money. He had also been requested to refrain, in his reply, from using soft words, and he should try to be very stern and plain! He was not going to hide himself behind

479
the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he simply, as a member of His Majesty's Government, said, that these schemes would cost a great deal of money, and of money they had none. The practical part was to consider what tax the Government should put on to provide the very large sums of money necessary. All these schemes at one time or another had been pressed on the attention of the Government. The district, he was told by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, had spent £165,000 on the Bann, but the right hon. Gentleman never alluded to the fact that the general public had contributed £109,000to the same drainage work; and now they heard that the navigation was useless, and that nobody was satisfied. Therefore they must have a careful inquiry before throwing away any more money. At that moment an examination was being made into the case of the Bann, so that therefore he need not say anything more about it. [An HON. MEMBER: When did the inquiry begin?] About a month ago. Most of the speeches differed very widely from the terms in which the Resolution was couched. The Resolution was an abstract Motion. It had to be so, because if it had been in a concrete form it would not have been in order. It would have involved an expenditure of £20,000,000, and that could only have been brought in by a Resolution in Committee of Supply. The second part of the Resolution was a vote of censure on the Government, because the House had not seen its way to sanction the expenditure of such a very large sum. The Resolution was a species of ukase addressed to the Government, but he would have thought that, after the declaration of the Leader of the
480
Party opposite, this order should have been issued rather to their successors than to themselves. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Party opposite had been present, he confessed he would have been more curious to hear his views about the projected expenditure of £20,000,000 in Ireland than anxious to express his own views. The proposal was an invitation to spend a great deal of money. Well, they had not got it. Or it was an invitation to alter the terms on which money had been lent for the objects under consideration. Could anyone seriously suggest that at a time when no municipality could float a loan they should alarm everybody interested in local finance by announcing an intention to alter the terms on which this money had been lent in Ireland? It was also suggested that they should enter upon administrative reforms, but these could not be acceptably proposed to the House unless accompanied by financial reforms. Hon. Members who knew nothing about the Irish drainage question might think from the debate that nothing had been done by the Government, whereas nearly £2,400,000 of the amount spent for that purpose had been from public money given and never repaid. The policy of the Government since 1863 had been, in Ireland as in England, a policy of assisting private initiative. If it were possible, the development of the waterways of Ireland would be an excellent work to undertake, but it was not possible. Would any Member, when the Budget was brought forward, propose a great tax for such a purpose? Since 1889 there had been in operation a policy of grants to Ireland for reproductive works, for railways, for local government, for

481
technical instruction, for objects which the representatives of Ireland preferred to arterial drainage schemes; not once had the voice of Ireland said drainage schemes would be preferred. Though now the voice of United Ireland made this proposal, he would not be surprised if another proposal were made next year.
MR. DELANYsaid he desired to congratulate his country on having an united Ireland in this House. It was a foretaste of what the Irish Parliament would be. The Chief Secretary a few days previously admitted that taxation in Ireland had increased, and yet the Irish Members were now met with the reply that there was no money available for drainage purposes in Ireland. Would that be the
case if Ireland had the management of its own affairs? The Irish Members had succeeded in bringing a most damaging indictment against the Government. They had an united Ireland, making a reasonable demand, supported by arguments which the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer. Was not the preservation of the lives and the health of people in Ireland worth the expenditure of public money? The demand of the Irish Members had not been satisfactorily met, though he had no doubt that united Ireland would be voted down by a majority of Englishmen.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 114;; Noes, 130. (Division List No. 69.)

AYES

Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

Allen, Charles P.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ambrose, Robert

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Asher, Alexander

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Joicey, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Bell, Richard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Black, Alexander William

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Brigg, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kilbride, Denis

Parrott, William

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambert, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Langley, Batty

Priestley, Arthur

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W,)

Reckitt, Harold James

Cullinan, J.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Reddy, M.

Delany, William

Leamy, Edmund

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dobbie, Joseph

Lloyd-George, David

Rickett, J. Compton

Doogan, P. C.

Lonsdale John Brownlee

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Duffy, William J.

Lough, Thomas

Roche, John

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lundon, W.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Russell, T. W.

Farrell, James Patrick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fenwick, Charles

M'Crae, George

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

Field, William

M'Fadden, Edward

Shackleton, David James

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gilhooly, James

Mooney, John J.

Sheehy, David

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Moore, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Hammond, John

Murphy, John

Soares, Ernest J.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Toulmin, George

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wood, James

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Percy, Earl

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Graham, Henry Robert

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Arrol, Sir William

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Plummer, Walter R.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Grenfell, William Henry

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gretton, John

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Groves, James Grimble

Randles, John S.

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

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Rankin, Sir James

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balfour, Kenneth, R. (Christch

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bignold, Arthur

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Bond, Edward

Hogg, Lindsay

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Brassey, Albert

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hoult, Joseph

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Hunt, Rowland

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Chapman, Edward

Keswick, William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Law, Andrew Benar (Glasgow)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Coates, Edward Feetham

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

Coghill, Doulgas Harry

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Spear, John Ward

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A R.

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Valentia, Viscount

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Majendie, James A. H.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William. H

Doughty, George

Manners, Lord Cecil

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

Doulgas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriessh.)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Milvain, Thomas

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Morrell, George Herbert

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland - Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Foster, P.S. (Warwick, S.W.)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Fyler, John Arthur

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Galloway, William Johnson

Nicholson, William Graham

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House,
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that, owing to the rapidity with which Supply had been granted that day, the Government would be able to proceed with Bills. The first Order for Wednesday would be the Second Reading of the Police (Superannuation)
484
Bill; the next the Second Reading of the Penal Servitude Bill; and then the Report of the Resolution agreed to in Ways and Means, on which the Appropriation Bill would be founded, and the Report of the Resolution on which to found the Telegraph (Money) Bill. The Licensing Bill would be taken after Easter.
Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

MARQUESS OF SLIGO.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Friday last, that the right of the Marquess of Sligo to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Corbridge Gas; Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats). The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Marylebone Chapels (Saint James, Westmoreland Street) Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Site for Duke of York's School Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments, and commit red to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
New River Comp my Bill [HL.]; York Town and Blackwater Gas Bill [H.L.]; Southend Water Bill; Barnard Castle Gas Bill [H.L.]; Elysée Palace Hotel Company Bill [H.L] West Metropolitan. Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]; Victoria University of Yorkshire Bill [H.L.]; Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Hudder-field Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]; Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Gosport Water Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Whitby Gas Bill; Hampton-in-Arden Gas Bill. Read 2ª, and committed.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [H.L.]. Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 3, Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Hillingdon East) Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 35.)
Littlestone-on-Sea and District Water Bill; South Shields Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
Bridlington Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.); Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [H L.]; Llanelly Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Holywood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]. 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.)—

E. Craven,

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

E. Camperdown (chairman),

L. Biddulph;

L. Boston,

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday the 21st of April next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be hoard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Ulster Electric Bower Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Lothians Electric Bower Bill [H.L.]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Bower Bill [H.L.]; Belfast and North-East Ireland Electricity and Bower Gas Bill [H.L.] Clyde Valley Electrical

375
Power Bill [H.L.]; Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]. 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.)—

E. Lauderdale (chairman),

L. Monteagle of Brandon,

E. Beauchamp,

L. Estcourt;

L. Saltoun,

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday the 21st of April next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMMERCIAL, No. 3 (1904).
  Reports on the constitution and functions of Ministries of Commerce or analagous branches of Foreign Ad ministrations (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, Commercial, No. 12 (1889) [Cd. 5674]. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, two years ago this Bill was passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House, but since then nothing has been heard of it, and I conclude that it must have dropped out at the end of the session without being noticed. The measure is agreed to on both sides of the House. I desire now to make a further attempt to get it passed into law. The Bill is in a great measure a Consolidation Bill. The Admiralty are desirous of putting a new naval guide at the disposal of officers in the Navy and this Bill relates to a region in which it is desirable that the law should be consolidated.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I was unaware until I came down, to the House to-day that this Bill was on the Paper, but I should like to say a few words in its support. I consider it to be extremely important that this Bill should be passed. At the outbreak of the South African War, when I was Attorney-General, it was found that virtually the rules and practice of the various prize Courts had not been considered for twenty-five or thirty years from the point of view of putting them on an organised basis. I know by personal knowledge, from communications made to me during the last two or three years by those who have been concerned in the drafting of the Bill, which was commenced during the time I was Attorney General, that there is the greatest need for the measure, and I trust your Lordships will pass it and that it will become law this session.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE VOLUNTEERS—ALLOWANCES.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can hold out any hopes that the allowance of 2s. 6d. per day for Volunteers attending regimental camps will be increased or if separation allowances will be granted to married Volunteers attending these camps. Your Lordships are aware of the difficulties that officers in Volunteer Corps have experienced in taking the requisite number of men into camp, and I venture to think that, if the allowance was increased or a separation allowance granted to married Volunteers attending the regimental camps, Commanding Officers would be relieved of a considerable amount of anxiety, and the force generally would be rendered more efficient by better attendance in camp. Not only are the men called upon to give up a considerable amount of their leisure time to attend drills and parades in the afternoon and evening, but they are also called upon to attend camp on six consecutive days, at least every alternate year. This means a considerable sacrifice of time to the Volunteers, and it must be borne in

377
mind that during the period they are in camp they do not earn any wages. It is therefore a considerable pecuniary sacrifice that they are called upon to make. In some cases, however, employers are so patriotic that they not only offer every opportunity they can to men to attend camp, but pay their wages during the time they are in camp. I am aware that the Army Estimates have been presented, and that the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary of State for War, may say he is unable to undertake anything that would entail any great increase in expenditure; but I trust that even if the first part of my Question meets with a negative reply the second part may be more fortunate. We are aware that a Royal Commission is sitting at the present moment on the question of the Auxiliary Forces, and that it will presumably report during this session; but, whatever their Report may be, I conclude that Volunteer camps will be held this year as usual, and that it will be necessary for at least 50 per cent, of the Volunteers to attend. I have referred to the sacrifices that the Volunteers are called upon to make, but the loss of money presses most heavily en the married Volunteers; and therefore I think it would be well if the War Office could see their way to grant them separation allowances. The cost to the country would not be very large, and it would enable many men who at present do not feel able to attend the camps to do so. This is the time when camps are being arranged for, and if the noble Earl could see his way to give a favourable answer to my Question I am sure a good many men who are now hesitating as to whether or not they can attend camp, will decide to do so. On this ground, and with the view of encouraging the greatest possible number of Volunteers to attend the camps during this summer, I would urge the noble Earl to give a favourable answer at least to the second part of my Question.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that my colleagues on the Army Council fully share the anxiety of all commanding officers to get their
378
men to attend camp. We recognise that there are great difficulties in the way, and we fully appreciate the efforts that are made by commanding officers to carry out the regulations. The noble Earl has suggested two alternatives which I have no doubt would be of great use in this direction. With regard to the first, he has pointed out that the Army Estimates have been introduced and that there is no provision in them for raising the camp allowance; and I would remind the noble Earl that the same difficulty applies to the second alternative with regard to the granting of separation allowances, for it would equally involve a very considerable charge on the Estimates. The fact that the Army Estimates have already been introduced in another place constitutes a difficulty in the way of the immediate adoption of either of the alternatives proposed. It is not, however, on this technical objection that I mainly rely in refusing the noble Earl's request. As he has pointed out, a Royal Commission is now considering the whole question of the Volunteers, and pending their Report it would scarcely be advisable for the War Office to carry out either of these alternatives, which would involve a great departure from the established practice.

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock,