Sitting of 27 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill [not amended]. Considered; to be read the third time.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Ilfracombe Harbour and Improvement Bill; Otley Gas and Improvement Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the Entre Rios Railways Company, Limited, to increase its capital, and to fund the arrears of dividends on its preference shares by the issue of fully-paid second preference stock; and for other purposes." [Entre Rios Railways Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the Cordoba and Rosario Railway Company, Limited, to increase its capital, and to fund the arrears of dividends on its preferred shares by the issue of fully-paid second preferred shares; and for other purposes." [Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the abandonment of the railways and works authorised by the Hastings Harbour District Railway Acts, 1897 and

1171
1903." [Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords.]
Entre Rios Railways Bill [Lords]; Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords]; Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Altrincham; and Bermondsey and Rotherhithe; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN.
  Petition from Aberdeen, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MEDICAL COUNCILS.
  Accounts presented, for 1904, of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment) Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158B]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTUEE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Tithe Acts, Copyhold Act, 1894, Inclosure Acts, and other Acts for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Reports of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) (INSPECTORS AND AUDITORS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th February; Mr. J. P. Farrell]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS OUT OF INDIA).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th March; Sir Walter Foster]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]
  VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES.
  Address for "Return of the Circular Letter on the subject of Vaccination Exemption Certificates, issued by the Home Office on the 1st day of September, 1904."—(Mr. Weir.)
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the proceedings of parish councils in regard to Allotments and Common Pasture under Section 26 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; and (2) the proceedings of county councils in regard to representations by parish councils for orders under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease eompulsorily for Allotments since the date of the last Return on the 8th day of July last (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 245, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)
  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Copy ordered, "of Monthly Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Discontinuance of Barrack Building owing to Abandonment of Army Corps Scheme.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what barracks and other buildings have been discontinued in consequence of the abandonment of the Army Corps scheme; and what money has been already expended upon such buildings.

  1173
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold Forster.) No barracks or other buildings have been discontinued. The construction of certain barracks at one time contemplated has not been proceeded with.

  *South African War Contracts—Short-weight Jam.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that on the sale of surplus jam after the South African War 1,350,816 tins, supposed to contain 1 lb., of jam, contained only 12 oz. each; what percentage of the quantity supplied is represented by the 1,350,816 tins; who were the contractors who supplied this, jam; what steps, if any, have been taken to obtain repayment of the amount overcharged; whether these contractors are still on the list of Government contractors; if so, why have they not been removed from the list.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The orders for the jam were placed through the Agents-General for the Colonies, and the names of the contractors are not known in this country. I am not yet in a position to give further information on the other points raised in the Question. This is one of the question which is still sub judice.

  Transvaal Loan—Payment of Premiums to Transvaal Treasury.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the guarantors of the first instalment of £10,000,000 of the £30,000,000 Transvaal Loan stipulated as a condition of their guarantee that any premiums which might be received on the issue of any part of the £30,000,000 should be paid into the Transvaal Treasury; and whether this condition was agreed to by Lord Milner.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) It was stated by the guarantors in a letter to Lord Milner that this was so understood, and Lord Milner informed
  * We are informed that this Question and Answer were accidentally omitted from the Votes of March 16th.
  1174
  them, in reply, that, although he was not in a position to commit His Majesty's Government, he believed it was never intended that His Majesty's Government should receive under the arrangement more than £30,000,000. I would refer the hon. Member to pages 2 and 4 of Cd. 1895.

  Water Supply of Ross-shire Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the names of the schools on the mainland Ross-shire which have water laid on to the premises, and those which have not.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I cannot at present give the hon. Member the information he desires, but as soon as it has been obtained I shall be ready to communicate it to him.

  Return of Burgh Charities (Scotland).
  MR. HALDANE: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he will supplement the Return of Parochial Charities in Scotland, promised in his Answer to the Question on the subject of July 11th† last, by adding a Return of Burgh Charities.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) Before giving a final reply to the Question the Secretary for Scotland would desire to be further informed as to the extent and purport of the Return of Burgh Charities now desired. Perhaps the right hon. Member would confer with me on the subject.

  Operations of bond Investment Companies.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the operations of bond investment companies, and the necessity, if any, which exists for Government supervision of their transactions.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Question asked by the hon. Member requires consideration, and I shall be glad if he will repeat his Question in a week's time.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1187.

  New Patent Rules.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the new Patent Rules for 1905 have been laid upon the Table, and if opportunity will be afforded of discussing them before the expiration of the statutory period, and when this date will be reached.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Rules were laid upon the Table of the House on February 15th, and the period of forty days within which the House may resolve that the Rules or any of them ought to be annulled expires today.

  United Kingdom.

  France.

  Germany.

  Italy.

  Duty on imported wheat par imperial quarter in 1904

  nil

  12s. 3d.

  7s. 7d.

  13s.

  Average price of wheat per imperial quarter in 1904.

  28s. 4d. (English Gazette Price)

  36s. 9d.

  38s. (Berlin price)

  41s. 11d.

  30s. (Average import value)

  36s. 9d. (Breslau price)

  Percentage of imports to total supply (cereal year 1903–4)

  82

  2·9

  37·2

  13·4

  Telegraphic Communication between Wolf or Longships Lighthouses and the Shore.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether there is telegraphic communication of any kind between the Wolf or Longships lighthouses and the shore; and, if not, whether it can be established at an early date in view of the recent loss of life in the wreck of the ship "Khyber."
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) No, Sir, there is no telegraphic communication between these two lighthouses and the shore; but both stations are

  Import Duty on, and Prices of, Wheat in England, France, Germany, and Italy.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what were the duties on imported wheat per imperial quarter in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, respectively, during the year 1904; what were the average prices of wheat per imperial quarter in each of those countries during that year; and what were the estimated percentages of imported wheat in the total wheat supply of each of those countries during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr Bonar Law.)
  able, owing to their proximity to the mainland, to communicate with the shore on clear nights by means of special signalling lamps provided for the purpose. Communication from the Longships can also be made by day by semaphore or explosive rocket, and by night by explosive rocket. As the hon. Member is aware, communication by wireless telegraphy is about to be established between six lightships and the shore, and if the experiment is found to be successful the system will, no doubt, be extended to other outlying light-stations. I can only say, at present, that the case of these two lighthouses will receive consideration.

  Voluntary Subscriptions to, and Cost of Maintenance of, Non-provided Schools in England and Wales.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what was the total amount of voluntary subscriptions to non-provided schools in England and Wales during the educational year 1903–4; and what was the estimated total cost of the maintenance of those schools during that year, distinguishing the amount received from Government grants and from local taxation respectively.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The period as to which the hon. Member desires information was a transitional one, and, since the Act came into force at a different date in different areas, the Board have found it impossible to attempt to collect any complete or satisfactory information on the points raised in the Question. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot give the hon. Member the figures he asks for.

  Compulsory Transfer of Female Telegraphists from Bath.
  MR. BARLOW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the three female telegraphists stationed at Bath, whom he has decided to transfer to other towns, entered the Bath Post Office as a result of open competitions for vacancies in that town only; and, if so, will he say whether compulsory transfer to other towns will be consistent with the conditions laid down by the Civil Service Commissioners; and whether he will reconsider his decision.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The transfer of these three telegraphists to another town is not inconsistent with the Civil Service Commissioners' announcement which states the conditions of their service as learners. I recognise the desirability of avoiding as far as possible the compulsory transfer of female telegraphists; but in the present case, owing to the conditions at Bath, it has been found necessary to diminish the staff of women employed there, and the transfer of some of their number is unavoidable.

  Armagh Postal Staff.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the indoor working staff at Armagh consists of seven qualified male officers and seven females and learners, and that the women and learners are exempt from money-order work, night duty, and the handling of the principal mail despatches; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the male staff has been further reduced temporarily by two officers withdrawn for work elsewhere, he will take steps to relieve the strain in consequence placed upon the remainder of the staff.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The indoor male staff actually employed at the Armagh Post Office has been reduced temporarily by one officer, who is in charge of a sub-post office, and not by two as the hon. Member appears to think, the second officer detatched for duty elsewhere being a female. I am satisfied that the male staff is not subjected to any undue strain in consequence of this temporary reduction.

  Jurisdiction and Postal Service in Zanzibar.
  MR. T. A. PEASE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement which was under negotiation in regard to jurisdiction and postal service in Zanzibar, referred to in Clause 2 of the Declaration made on April 8th, 1904, between the United Kingdom and France, and in consequence of which the Government withdrew their protest against the Customs tariff established at Madagascar after the annexation of that island by France, has been completed; and, if so, what is the effect of such agreement.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The agreement was concluded on 13th May last. In accordance with its provisions, the French post office at Zanzibar was closed on July 31st last, and the French Consular Court on 15th September.

  Relief for Unemployed—Expenditure by Metropolitan Borough Councils.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the President of the Local Government

  1179
  Board whether he will grant a Return showing the amounts of the moneys which have been expended by the several metropolitan borough councils to provide relief for the unemployed during the winter 1904–5.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I shall be happy to give a Return on the subject, and I will communicate with my hon. friend as to the form of the Motion for the Return.

  Part Payment of Poor Rate.
  MR. ROBSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is willing to direct or recommend the overseers collecting the poor rate to receive part payment thereof in cases where the ratepayer refuses or omits to pay the whole rate.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) It rests with the overseers to decide whether they will or will not receive part payment of a poor rate in any particular case in which the ratepayer refuses or omits to pay the whole rate, and I am not prepared to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

  Outstanding Exchequer and Treasury Bills.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of Exchequer and Treasury Bills outstanding at the present time; and also the total of the same class or classes of Bills outstanding on same date in March of each of the last three years.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Statements relating to the Unfunded Debt which are issued at different dates cause great inconvenience and are apt to mislead; perhaps the hon. Member will kindly await the delivery of the Budget Statement. If the details I then give respecting the National Debt are insufficient I shall be happy to supplement them.

  Birmingham School of Brewing—Competition of Laboratory with Private Analysts.
  MR. LEIF JONES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the
  1180
  School of Brewing in connection with the University of Birmingham has not fulfilled the expectations of its founders; that to provide against the closing of the school a professional laboratory, in competition with private analysts, is to be established for the purpose of analysing brewers' samples; that it is proposed to advertise the existence of the laboratory to the brewing trade generally; and that the local brewers, in consideration of having guaranteed a sum towards the maintenance of the school, are to have their analytical work done at the school laboratory free of cost to the extent of their respective guarantees; and whether he will take steps to prevent an institution supported partly out of public funds being thus used in competition with private professional analysts.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am informed that the School of Brewing has completely fulfilled the expectations of its founders and is now in a most flourishing condition; the buildings, equipment, and annual working cost have all been provided by the Birmingham and Midland Counties Wholesale Brewers Association, so that no part of the funds of the University or the Government grant have been used in founding or carrying on the school. The scientific work done in the school is the subject of a complimentary reference from the gentlemen who carried out the last quinquennial inspection on behalf of the Treabury in 1901. I understand that it is now proposed to make additions to the school as a result of a visit made by a deputation from the Board of Management to the schools of Ghent, Berlin, Vienna, Munich, and Paris. I see no reason for any Treasury interference.

  Purchase of Rifles by Indian Government.
  COLONEL BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the price paid for rifles bought by the Indian Government this financial year, and the number of rifles thus purchased from the Home Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The price paid for magazine Lee-Enfield rifles in 1904–5 is £4 9s. 6d. per arm,

  1181
  including cost of inspection and other departmental expenses. This rate is, however, subject to adjustment when the actual cost of manufacture in the Royal Ordnance Factories has been ascertained. The number of rifles purchased was 92,574.

  Appointment of Head Constable Bratton, of Athy, County Kildare.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what age and on what date, Head Constable Samuel Bratton, of Athy, county Kildare, first became a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) At the age of 21 years, and on September 6th, 1876.

  O'Donel Estate, Newport, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many years the O'Donel Estate at Newport, country Mayo, has been in Chancery; how many applications for purchase have been made by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners; who are the trustees of estate; and what is the cause of the delay in the sale of the estate to the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The petition for sale of this estate was filed in 1893. The Commissioners have made no offer to purchase, but the Congested Districts board have been in communication with the Land Judge in respect to the issue of a request under Section 77 of the Act of 1903. The matter will come before the Land Judge for consideration early next sittings.

  Names and Previous Occupations of Irish Local Government Board Auditors.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names and previous occupations of the Local Government Board auditors for Ireland.
  1182
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This information will be found in a Return presented to Parliament in 1902 (Parliamentary Paper No. 146 of that session), supplemented by a similar Return which is now about to be laid upon the Table.

  Discharge of Assistant Teacher of School Roll No. 15,008.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under what circumstances, and for what special reason, was the senior and higher qualified assistant in national school, Roll No. 15,008, dismissed on the reduction of the average school attendance; has this teacher capably discharged her duty during her service of twenty-two years; and has anything been alleged by the inspectors of the Board of Education against her competency and qualifications, and is she now eligible for reinstatement in her former position, or, failing that, for a suitable pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) The Commissioners were obliged, under the rules, to withdraw salary from one of the two assistant teachers in this school in consequence of the insufficiency of the average attendance of pupils. The services of the assistant referred to in the Question were discontinued because the manager, in the exercise of his powers, elected to retain the other assistant. The service of the discharged assistant has been satisfactory, but it is stated that she suffers from a physical defect which militates against her usefulness. If, however, she should be selected as assistant by any school manager her case will be specially considered by the Commissioners. She is not eligible for a pension.

  Conduct of Constables Gumbleton and Roche at Belmullet.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of two constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Gumbleton and Roche, on the evening of January 28th, on the public road outside Belmullet, when they assaulted John

  1183
  Munnelly, and compelled him to walk up and down the public road for fifty yards to enable them to judge whether he was under the influence of drink; and when Munnelly escaped from the police pursued him and subsequently took him to the police barracks at Belmullet; whether, seeing that the charge made against Munnelly at the Belmullet Petty Sessions of having been under the influence of drink on the occasion in question was dismissed, he will order an inquiry into the whole matter; and will he consider the advisability of having these constables removed to another station.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Mr. Munnelly was arrested by the constables named for drunkenness while in charge of a horse, and he was also charged with assaulting Constable Gumbleton when being arrested. A counter charge of assault was brought by Mr. Munnelly against Constable Gumbleton. The magistrates dismissed the complaints on both sides, but expressed the opinion that Mr. Munnelly, though not drunk, was under the influence of drink when arrested. The question of holding a disciplinary inquiry into the matter will not be decided pending the result of a civil action which, it is stated, Mr. Munnelly is about to institute.

  Qualifications of Headmaster of Technical Instruction at Armagh.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what were the certificates of qualification held by the present headmaster of technical instruction of Armagh previous to his appointment; and why is registration as a teacher under the Act of 1902 not considered necessary.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The headmaster held the following certificates. From the City and Guilds of London Institute: Fall technological certificate in masonry, honours certificates in brickwork and plumbing, and first prize for practical leadwork. From the Board of Education, London: Advanced certificates in practical, plane, and solid geometry, building construction, and mathematics, and pass certificates in other subjects, including carpentry and joinery,
  1184
  practical mathematics, and applied mechanics. He also took first place at an examination for the post of assistant county surveyor in Ireland. I am not aware of any Act of 1902 applying to Ireland which bears on the subject.

  Irish Agricultural Department—Transfer of a Catholic Clerk.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since the Agricultural Department state that the Catholic clerk transferred from the veterinary to the fisheries branch did not suffer diminution of income, he will explain why this gentleman is now restricted to a class salary of £95, whereas he formerly received approximately £15 extra for acting as clerk in waiting.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Overtime earnings are not recognised as a regular part of official income, and no individual clerk has any vested right to be employed on overtime duty.

  Field Guns for 4th West York Volunteer Artillery.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War why the modern 15-pounder field guns officially promised to the 4th West York Volunteer Artillery in 1901, in replacement of their museum guns, have not been delivered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is regretted that no modern 15-pounder field guns are at present available for issue to the 4th West York Volunteer Artillery.

  Mobilisation Manuals.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether mobilisation manuals, such as are in use in India, have yet been prepared for the Remount Department at Home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A remount manual has been prepared for use on mobilisation, containing instructions for officers employed on remount duties at home and abroad. A mobilisation scheme for the provision of horses for Home defence has also been prepared in each of the Home commands,

  1185
  which is kept up to date by the local staff.

  Issue of Somaliland Medals.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any difficulty in the way of the immediate issue of a medal or a ribbon to the officers and men who were engaged in the recent Somaliland expeditions; and how soon such issue will be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Issue has been made already of all medals and clasps due on those medal rolls which have been forwarded to the War Office.

  Barracks on Salisbury Plain—Further Expenditure.
  MR. BROOKE ROBINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what further sums of money it is likely will be spent in connection with the barracks on Salisbury Plain.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is estimated that a further sum of £737,000 will be spent on barracks on Salisbury Plain, partly on new works and partly on continuation services.

  Reduction of Transvaal Constabulary Force—Maintenance of Order between Chinese and Kaffirs.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he has received any recommendations or suggestions from the Government of the Transvaal Colony that the cost of the constabulary force should and may with safety be reduced; (2) and whether he will consider the advisability of charging the cost of preserving order between Kaffirs and Chinese on the Rand to the companies owning the mines.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) (1) I have not recently received any recommendation as to the reduction of the South African Constabulary, the estimated cost of which for the current year is £1,110,300 as compared with a sum of £1,520,000 voted for the previous year. (2) The duty of preserving order within the compounds falls upon the mining companies, who employ their own
  1186
  Chinese police, for whom they pay. The ordinary town police force, or South African Constabulary, would only be called in under exceptional circumstances.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Navy Retirement Regulations.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty why it is that His Majesty's naval officers are to be compulsorily retired on attaining the age of sixty, while officers in the Army are not compulsorily retired until the age of sixty-five.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The age for compulsory retirement in the Navy is not a general one, as the hon. Member seems to think. It varies according to the rank of the officers. For instance, admirals and vice-admirals are compulsorily retired at sixty-five, rear admirals at sixty, and captains at fifty-five. No change in these regulations is proposed.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: Why are officers in the Navy retired at an earlier age than those in the Army?
  MR. PRETYMAN: They are not.

  South African War Jam Contracts—Government Explanation.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in receipt from the Colonial Governments of the names of the contractors who supplied 1,350,816 tins of jam for South Africa, each tin containing, as described in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, 12 ounces of jam instead of 1 lb.; and whether he can say how it was that shortage on so large a scale passed unnoticed when the goods first passed into the hands of the War Office authorities in South Africa.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): The War Department is now in possession of

  1187
  the names of the contractors who supplied jam to South Africa from Australia and Tasmania. But as the Question put might convey some reflection on the firms concerned, I should like to take this opportunity of making a statement on the facts of the case. None of the jam so supplied was in tins containing only twelve ounces. Part of the supply was in tins containing sixteen ounces, but the bulk was in nominals containing either fourteen ounces or twenty-eight ounces (one pound and two pound nominals). These nominals were either ordered as such or were in execution of orders for net weights. In the latter case an extra number of nominals was supplied equivalent to the deficiency. In all cases the country received the full quantity of jam paid for. When, however, the sale to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General refers took place in South Africa, the jam was sold by net weight and not by tins. Any apparent shortage is attributed to the fact that in the first place certain shrinkages had occurred through the heat and exposure to which the goods were, of necessity, subjected, and that, in the second place, the local military authorities had, under a misapprehension, treated the tins as containing full pounds of jam.

  Western Australia—Ill-treatment of Aborigines.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the ill-treatment of the aborigines of Western Australia, as disclosed in the Report of the Royal Commission; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this state of things.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have just received the Report referred to, which is dated December 29th last. As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for East Cork on March 1st†, I understand that legislation will shortly be introduced in Western Australia dealing with the abuses disclosed in the Report. I have asked the Governor to
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 10
  1188
  inform me as soon as possible what action his Ministers propose to take in the matter.

  Liquor Shops in Madras Presidency.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the questions recently addressed by the Board of Revenue in the Madras Presidency to the collectors in reference to the desirability of a reduction in the number of liquor shops in the towns and districts; whether he is aware that the collectors in most cases recommended reductions; whether the Board of Revenue declined to approve of these recommendations; and, if so, whether he will state the grounds upon which this decision was arrived at.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BEODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I have not seen the reference nor the replies made by collectors. In reviewing the Excise Report for 1903–4 the Madras Board of Revenue deal with the subject, and explain that no great reductions in the number of shops were in their opinion possible, as the number had already been fixed with care and was not excessive.

  Deaths from Plague and Smallpox in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the latest figures as to the number of deaths from plague and smallpox in India; whether he will state the number of deaths from plague since January 1st, 1905; and whether he is in a position to make a statement as to what special steps the Government of India are taking to reduce the rate of mortality and to prevent the spread of the disease.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am unable to give figures regarding deaths from smallpox, as they are not specially returned to me. For plague the latest received figures are for the month of February, namely, 126,041 deaths. The total number of deaths from plague since January 1st up to the end of February is 252,567. I have been in communication with the Viceroy as to whether more can be done

  1189
  to remedy the present deplorable loss of life. It has been decided to send out a scientific expedition to make a thorough investigation into the origin and causes of plague. The Royal Society and the Lister Institute have undertaken the direction of the inquiry, and arrangements for starting it at once have been made.
  MR. SCHWANNasked whether plague had not something to do with want of food owing to the enormous taxation placed upon the Indian people.
  MR. BRODRICK: We have no evidence to that effect. It is almost impossible to trace any special cause for the increase in the number of deaths, but there is one satisfactory feature, which is that the number of infected areas has not increased.
  MR. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman try the effect of abolishing the salt tax?
  MR. BRODRTCK: The present Indian Budget has made a considerable reduction in the salt duty.

  Italy and the Congo Free State.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Italian Government has announced that it will refuse permission to any Italian officer to take service under the Government of the Congo Free State; and, if so, if he can state what are the reasons given by the Italian Government for this action.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No such information has been received by His Majesty's Government.

  Salonica Disturbances.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Donegal, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that
  1190
  a band of thirty-one komitajis, under their leader Apostol, was recently exterminated in the Salonica district, and that the Austrian officer who visited the scene has reported that all the corpses were mutilated.
  EARL PERCY: It appears that an encounter at the village of Smol between the Turkish troops and a band of about forty komitajis resulted in nine casualties to the former, and the extermination of the band, with the exception of the leader Apostol and four others who escaped. A Russian gendarmerie officer was a witness of the engagement, and His Majesty's Consul reports, as a satisfactory feature, the fact that discipline was enforced among the troops and that no damage was inflicted upon either the village or its inhabitants.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: Were the bodies mutilated?
  EARL PERCY: I am not aware.

  Turkish Outrages at Kuklish.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Donegal, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any punitive action is to be taken as a result of the report of the Russian gendarmerie officer on the outrages committed by the Turkish troops at Kuklish on 16th February.
  EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has made earnest representations to the Grand Vizier with a view to the punishment of any persons who may have been responsible for excesses, and a Commission has been appointed to institute a full inquiry, at which the Russian gendarmerie officer will be present.

  Grants to English University Colleges.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is a statutory requirement, in the case of grants in aid of University colleges in England, that four times the amount is required from local subscriptions before anything is derived from the public funds; and, if so, what is the statute in which it is to be found.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): My right ton. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. There are no such statutory requirements.
  MR. CLANCY: Are there any requirements, statutory or otherwise?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There has been such a requirement in regard to the grant in past times. But proposals in regard to the future allocation of the grant have been made by the Committee presided over by Mr. Horsley, and they are now under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. CLANCY: Do I understand that it is proposed that there should be a grant of £100,000 a year to the University colleges mentioned in the Report; and is there any requirement, statutory or otherwise, in regard to this grant.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is a proposal by the Committee that the distribution should be governed by the amount of voluntary subscriptions obtained by these colleges. The Government have not yet come to a decision on the subject.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will these amounts appear on the Estimates?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: They are in the Votes already.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: £100,000?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, £100,000 to English colleges; and it is less per head of the population than is devoted to any other division of the United Kingdom.

  The Babbicombe Murderer.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of John Lee, who was convicted in February, 1885, for the Babbicombe murder and sentenced to death, which sentence was afterwards commuted to one
  1192
  of penal servitude for life; and whether having regard to the fact that Lee has now served a period of twenty years imprisonment, he can see his way to advise that the clemency of the Crown be exercised in favour of this man's release.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have fully considered the facts of this case, but I regret that, having regard to the character of Lee's crime, and to the circumstances under which the capital sentence was respited, I cannot advise any exercise of the Royal prerogative in the convict's favour. I may say that, while persons under original sentence of penal servitude for life are as a general rule released on licence when they have served twenty years, this practice does not necessarily apply to cases where a death sentence for murder has been commuted to penal servitude for life; but each such case is considered independently on its merits.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are there any periodical seasons for the revision and reconsideration of these cases?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Cases are brought up from time to time. This case was brought up. It was dealt with by Sir W. Harcourt, who regarded it as a very bad case indeed, and every one of my predecessors have concurred in the opinion of the original Secretary of State.
  MR. FENWICK: Has there been any complaint against the character of Lee during the time he has been in gaol?
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not know of anything in that alone to justify the decision, but we have had to consider the original circumstances, and the fact that this man has threatened the lives of persons now living.

  Brighton Women Telegraphists and Compulsory Sunday Duty.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that women telegraphists and women telephonists at Brighton have

  1193
  been informed that they are to be compelled to perform Sunday duty, and that the persons affected have protested against this action on the part of the authorities; whether the Department will economise by employing women in the place of men; and whether, in view of the objection taken by the women to the imposition of Sunday duties, he will reconsider his decision.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. After fully considering the protest I decided that the arrangement, which is an economical one, should be adopted, and I see no reason for altering my decision, especially as the duty will fall to by far the larger number of the officers concerned on only about three Sundays in the year.

  Newspapers and Periodicals—Postage Rates.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that a registered newspaper may be sent through the post for one halfpenny, irrespective of its weight, and that in some cases registered newspapers weighing over two pounds are sent at that rate, while the postage on a periodical of the same weight which does not come within the definition of registered newspaper would be 5d.; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this anomaly.
  LORD STANLEY: The anomaly of which the hon. Member speaks has not been allowed to escape my attention or that of my predecessors. Unfortunately the Post Office Act of 1870, which laid down the privileged postage rate of one halfpenny for registered newspapers, did not fix any limit of weight, and advantage is taken of this omission by certain publications. The remedy would be to impose a limit; but that cannot be done without legislation. I should be glad to introduce a Bill giving power to fix such a limit if I had reason to think it would be treated as non-contentious.

  Underfed School Children.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the
  1194
  Board of Education whether the evidence on medical inspection of schools and feeding starving school children taken by the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland, and by the Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, will be laid before the new Committee of the Board of Education; whether fresh evidence will be taken by them, and of what nature; whether the further consideration of the Report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration will be suspended until the new Committee reports; and whether their Report will be made before the end of the session.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Physical Training and the Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration will be before the new Committee referred to. The terms of reference sufficiently indicate the character of the fresh evidence which that Committee is intended to take; and the consideration of the Report of the Committee on Physical Deterioration will only be suspended in respect of the matters included under that reference. I cannot say whether a Report will be made before, the end of the session.

  Poor Law Relief for Underfed Children.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education will address a circular to local education authorities advising them to instruct the managers and teachers of public elementary schools to refer the case of children attending their schools hungry and destitute, and unable from affliction to profit by the instruction provided, to the proper Poor Law authorities for relief.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Such a circular as is proposed could not properly be issued by the Board of Education without the concurrence of the Local Government Board. I will consider the matter.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Lambeth Board of Guardians have desired public elementary school teachers to adopt this course?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No, Sir, but I will inquire.

  Underfed School Children on the Continent.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will obtain, if possible, through the Foreign Office, and lay, a Report showing the methods adopted in the great Continental cities for dealing with hungry and ill-clad children, and the extent to which, if any, public moneys are spent upon the feeding and clothing needs of such children.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has promised to obtain what information he can for me on the points raised in the Question. I will consider whether the Board can supplement this information in any way, and also in what form the Report, when received, can best be issued.

  Local Government Board and Underfed School Children—Milk Relief.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will address a circular to the local Poor Law authorities pointing out the duties of relieving officers in reference to giving medical and other relief to destitute children irrespective of the conduct and character of their parents; and whether the Local Government Board will suggest that, in case of relief in kind given to destitute children, part of such relief should be in the form of milk.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): My reply to the Question of my right hon. friend must be to the same effect as that which I gave on the 20th instant † to a somewhat similar Question put to me by the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division. I am not aware of any reason for supposing that boards of guardians and their officers are not alive to the powers and duties which attach to them in relation to destitute children, where application is made to them for relief. With regard
  † See page 427.
  1196
  to the latter part of the Question, I think that boards of guardians may be trusted to use their discretion as to the giving of milk as outdoor relief to destitute children. The Local Government Board called the attention of their inspectors to the subject last year. It does not appear to me to be necessary to issue a circular as suggested.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lambeth Board of Guardians sent an officer, at my request, to inquire into the case of certain destitute children, and that he did not relieve them at all?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I shall be pleased to do so.
  MR. HORNER: Did the officer not find that there was no need for relief?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Local Building By-laws.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he is aware that in certain districts the local by-laws are framed so that not only is the building of new cottages arrested, but families are forced to reside in unhealthy dwellings; and, if so, will he state what action he will take in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that complaints have been made in connection with this matter; and it is at present engaging my attention.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain suburban districts the rules are much more stringent than in the County of London?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say.

  Island of Lewis-Visits of Medical Officers of Health.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that no medical inspector from the Local Government Board for Scotland has visited the Island of Lewis, and that, although the island contains a population of nearly 30,000, it has only been visited four times during the last five years by the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty, will he state the names of the districts visited by this officer.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The medical officer reports that he visited, in 1901, Barvas, Uig, Carloway, Garrynahine, Stornoway; in 1902, Lochs, Keose, Uig, Garrynahine; in 1903, Barvas, Carloway, Garrynahine; in 1904, Barvas,

  School

  Period of Closure, 1904.

  Nature of the Disease.

  Applecross Public School -

  March 18th to April 11th

  Influenza.

  Applecross, Torridon Public School.

  April 12th to April 25th

  Not stated.

  Gairloch, Opinan Public School.

  November 4th to Nov ember 28th.

  Varicella.

  Gairloch, Kinloch Pub lic School.

  June 1st to July 15th

  Scarlet Fever.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that twenty-five Norwegian trawlers and other trawlers of different nationalities habitually engage in trawling in the Moray Firth, will arrangements be made for a Fishery Board cruiser to more frequently patrol the Moray Firth with a view to prevent the destruction of the gear of local fishermen, and the prevention of trawling within the three-mile limit.
  *MR. SCOTT-DICKSON: The Fishery Board have no recent complaints of destruction of gear or undetected infraction of the three-mile limit. At the present time two cruisers continuously
  Stornoway; and this year he will probably visit Barvas, Garrynahine, Keose, and Stornoway during next month.

  Ross-shire Public Schools and Fever Outbreaks.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether there have been any outbreaks of fever or other contagious diseases on the western mainland of Ross-shire during last year such as to necessitate the closing of public schools; if so, will he state the names of the schools closed and the periods for which they were respectively closed.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The following schools on the western mainland of Rossshire were closed during the year 1904 by order of the sanitary authority, acting on the advice of the medical officer of health:—
  patrol the Moray Firth, and, if it were found necessary, another might be transferred from Stornoway.

  Mercantile Marine—Training for Scotch Boys
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will afford to parents in the congested districts information, by lectures or other methods, relating to training of boys for the mercantile marine.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Congested Districts Board are affording information on the subject referred to by every means in their power. If the hon. Member can suggest any particular method by which the end in view may be attained in his constituency,

  1199
  the Secretary for Scotland will be pleased to favourably consider it.

  Jury-Packing at Cork Assizes.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that, at the present Cork Spring Assizes, in connection with the trial of John Murphy on the charge of the murder of Kate M'Carthy, thirty-seven jurors were ordered to stand aside; can he say how many of these challenged jurors were Catholics; and was this course adopted with the sanction of the Irish Law Officers.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The Crown, solicitor reports that the number of jurors ordered to stand aside was thirty-four, not thirty-seven; that he did not know and did not make any inquiry as to the religion of the jurors set aside, nor was he in any way influenced by any consideration of the kind; that he acted in pursuance of the provisions of the Circular to Crown Solicitors dated the 12th February, 1894; and that, so far as he has been able to ascertain since the trial concluded and is able to form an opinion, ten of the twelve jurors who tried the case are Catholics. The reply to the last query is in the affirmative.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thirty-four of the jurors were Catholics? Is it intended to continue a system so offensive?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of it, and I do not believe it.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I see the Solicitor-General for Ireland has returned from his jury-packing campaign in Cork. Has he nothing to say on this serious matter?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Thomas Dowling's Cappawhite Estate, County Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for some time past the estate of the late Thomas Dowling, in the
  1200
  parish of Cappawhite, and county Tipperary, which has been in the management of the Land Judge's Court for several years past, has recently been up for sale to the tenants; that a tenant on the estate named Daniel Moran, who holds a house and one rood of land in the village of Cappawhite and a farm of ten acres at some distance, signed purchase agreements at twenty years purchase on rental of house at £1 18s. that is £38 capital, and at twenty-one years purchase on rental of farm £9 annual, that is £189 capital sum, all arrears included; that afterwards the receiver processed Moran for a year's rent which should be paid; and that the Commissioner from the Land Commission Court, who came to inspect the holdings, approved of sale; and, if so, whether, seeing that on the 6th instant the solicitor having carriage of sale wrote saying Moran could not get the village holding, lie will state the names of the receiver, the solicitor having carriage of sale, and the incumbrancer, and take steps so that the incumbrancer will not obtain the holdings in preference to the tenants in occupation.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Mr. Moran signed agreements to purchase his agricultural and village holdings, respectively. The Land Judge accepted the proposal as to the agricultural holding, but refused the proposal as to the village holding. The agricultural holding cannot be vested in the purchaser until he furnishes the Land Commission with the necessary evidence of occupancy. The Land Judge is not prepared to supply the names of persons who are simply doing their duty as officers of the Court, or of the incumbrancers who are exercising their legal rights.

  Gun Licences in County Galway—Case of Thomas Keary.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Keary, D. C., Kililand Mills, Kiltulla, county Galway, has purchased his farm, which contains forty acres, under the Act of 1903; and whether

  1201
  there is any objection to his getting a licence for a gun to protect his crops from damage, particularly during the seed time which is now at hand.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Mr. Keary has not applied to the licensing officer for a gun licence. The question of issuing such a licence is one for determination by that officer, and I am unable to reply to the second inquiry.

  Inniskea Island.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the negotiations with Mr. E. C. Walsh for the purchase of Inniskea Island, the Congested Districts Board made any inquiry as to the willingness of that gentleman to sell to the Board the main-land portion of his property.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The Board were informed by Mr. Walsh that he did not propose to sell the mainland portion of the property.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the population of the Island of Inniskoa, the number of holdings, the valuation, the number of acres of untenanted land (if any), the amount of the rental upon which the purchase price of the island was based, and the purchase price.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The population is 289, the number of holdings 55, the valuation £86 5s., the number of acres of untenanted land 69; the rental upon which the purchase price was based £104 5s.; and the purchase price £1,000.

  O'Donnell and Coyne Estates, Erris, County Mayo.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether any negotiations have taken place, or whether negotiations are pending, between the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners and the owners of the O'Donnell and Coyne Estates, in Erris, county Mayo, with a view to sale and purchase.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Congested Districts Board made an offer in the Land Judge's Court for the purchase of the O'Donnell Estate, but the offer was not accepted. With this exception the Answer to the Question is in the negative.

  Buttevant Evicted Tenant.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent prosecution of an evicted tenant on the Fuge Estate, near Buttevant, named Thomas O'Grady, on a charge of alleged intimidation at Mallow Fair; and, seeing that the magistrate's decision was quashed by the superior Court in Dublin, will he explain why this man's business papers and notebook are still detained by the police, who took them from him at Mallow, and what compensation will be made to him for the detention of his business documents.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The police have not detained any papers or books belonging to O'Grady, and did not take possession of any such articles.
  MR. FLYNN: If my information should prove correct, will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the documents be returned?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed that the police have not detained them.

  Untenanted Lands in County Roscommon —Irwin, Balf, and Goff Estates.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the dates on which the Irwin, Balf, and Goff Estates, in the county of Roscommon, on each of which there is a quantity of untenanted land, were offered to the Estates Commissioners; whether an offer has been made for them, or any of them; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay in acquiring these properties.
  MR. WALTER LONG: In the Irwin Estate an originating request was lodged on October 17th last, but the inspector's report has not yet been received. In the

  1203
  Balf Estate a request, under Section 7, was issued to the Land Judge on January 27th, 1904, and the inspector's report is now under consideration. In the Goff Estate an originating application was received on May 19th last, and it will be shortly dealt with by the Commissioners.

  Mr. Young's Castlerea Estate.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of Mr. Young, near Castlerea, in the county Roscommon, upon which there is a quantity of untenanted land, was offered by the owner for sale to the Estates Commissioners in May, 1904, and was inspected by an official of the Commissioners in June; and, if so, will he say whether any offer to purchase has yet been made; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay, in view of the necessity of acquiring untenanted land in that district.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A further inspection of this estate became necessary, and is now being made. The Commissioners will consider the inspector's report, when received, with a view to making an offer to purchase.

  Lismore Guardians and Irish Manufactures.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lismore Board of Guardians have by resolution requested the Local Government Board for Ireland, in view of the efforts now being made for the promotion of Irish industries and manufactures, to authorise them to entertain only tenders received from bonâ fide Irish manufacturing firms for medicines and medical and surgical appliances; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will give the Lismore Guardians and any other public bodies desiring to follow the same principle this discretion in the case of all articles manufactured in Ireland by a number of firms sufficient to ensure adequate competition; and whether he will make inquiries of the President of the Local Government Board for England to ascertain whether this principle is adopted by a considerable number of boards of guardians in England.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The duty of the board of guardians in the exercise of their public trust is to have due regard to economy and to obtain the best return possible for the money of the ratepayers whom they represent. The Local Government Board have no power to enlarge or curtail the responsibility of the guardians in this respect. The English Local Government Board have no knowledge that the method suggested in the Question is adopted in this country.

  Ballydonlon Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a portion of the Ballydonlon Estate, county Galway, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, is to be given to a Mr. Rothwell, petty sessions clerk of Ballinasloe, who was never a tenant on the estate and who does not live within miles of it, seeing that Mr. Rothwell is already in possession of more than one farm elsewhere.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify this estate. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the name of the landlord I will have inquiries made.

  Donegal Grand Jury.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Donegal Assizes held recently not a single Catholic was on the Grand Jury; and whether, having regard to the proportion of the population of the county that is Catholic and to the number of Catholics in the county well qualified to act as grand jurors, he will in future take steps to secure that Catholics shall be represented on the Grand Jury.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have no means of ascertaining the religion of the Grand Jury. The summoning of the Grand Jury is the act of the High Sheriff under the restrictions contained in the Grand Jury Act. There is no allegation that the provisions of that statute have not been observed. The Executive, therefore, have no right to interfere.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not abolish this thing altogether?
  MR. MACVEAGH: How was it that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was enabled to ascertain the religion of the Grand Jurors in county Down?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Agricultural Instruction in Donegal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the deadlock in the administration of the agricultural schemes in Donegal owing to the Department's rule excluding the people of a county from appointments as instructors in their own county still continues; and, if so, whether he, as President of the Department, will advise the withdrawal of this rule.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Donegal County Committee have put the live stock schemes and the flax scheme into operation. They have also allocated funds for schemes of instruction in butter-making, poultry-keeping, and horticulture, but have not, so far as the Department are aware, yet taken steps to secure the services of suitable instructors in connection with these schemes, although many qualified Irish candidates are available. I am not prepared to advise the withdrawal of the rule referred to.
  In reply to a further Question,
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had no reason to believe there was any general dissatisfaction with the operation of the rule. The whole matter had been the subject of careful inquiry.

  Elementary Science Teaching in Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to, the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that only 500 teachers of national schools in Ireland have passed through a full course of elementary science instruction, that less than 5,000 teachers have been trained by the organisers on the science course for the junior standards, and that more
  1206
  than 8,000 teachers have got no training whatsoever, will the Government explain why six of the science organisers have got notice that their services will not be required after March 31st instant.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have already, in reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 20th instant,† stated the reasons for terminating the employment of these organisers.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has seen the last reports of the Head Organiser of Science Instruction arid of the inspectors; and if the opinions of those experts, as to whether or not the services of the science organisers at present employed should be retained, will receive consideration.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have not seen the reports referred to, which will be published with the Board's next Annual Report. The Board, I have no doubt, give due consideration to the opinions of their officers.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangement has been made for the training of those teachers, over 8,000 in number, in elementary science who have not yet had any opportunity of attending the organisers' classes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I replied to a Question to the same effect, put by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, on the 24th inst.‡

  Goff Estate, County Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the delay that has taken place in the sale and purchase of the Goff Estate, in the county of Roscommon; whether he is aware that an originating statement with duly signed agreements to purchase was lodged in this case so far back as the 31st May last and inspection made so far back as July; and
  † See page 461.
  ‡ See page 1081.

  1207
  that last autumn the Estates Commissioners were informed that a grass farm on the estate had been surrendered, and that it had been agreed to sell it for the purpose of division amongst the adjoining small holders, and that an inspection of this holding was delayed till about five weeks ago, since which nothing has been done, though repeated applications to close the sale of the estate, to which no answer of any kind has been given, have been made by those representing the owners; and, if so, will he say how much longer is this transaction to be kept open.
  MR. WALTER LONG: There has been delay, but it was unavoidable. The Commissioners anticipate that they will shortly be able to make an offer in the case of this estate, and thus bring the matter to a conclusion.

  Irish Board of Education Rules.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can define what is meant by a fundamental rule, to which reference is made in Rule 4 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board of National Education in Ireland; whether it is to be understood that the new rules were not submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant; and, if not, whether there was any special reason for not doing so; whether it is to be understood that no fundamental rule has been changed in the new rules just issued; whether he is aware of the important testimony to Irish as an educational factor in national schools contained in Mr. Dale's Report; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent the national language of Ireland being threatened with starvation by the Treasury.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The expression "fundamental rule" is not defined in the Commissioners' Code of general regulations, but a definition of its meaning will be found in the letter addressed on the 9th February, 1864, by the Commissioners to Sir Robert Peel, then Chief Secretary for Ireland, and published in 1870 with the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Primary Education in Ireland. Proposals involving increased expenditure necessarily require Treasury sanction before they are embodied in
  1208
  rules, and no fundamental rule has been changed in the new Code. In his Report on primary education Mr. Dale expressed no opinion on the propriety of retaining instruction in extra subjects, of which Irish is one. He pointed out, indeed, that in England and Wales no grants for extra subjects are made at all, that subjects such as French, Latin, Mathematics, or even Welsh are taken as part of the ordinary school curriculum, and then only when the circumstances of the school make it desirable. In answer to the concluding inquiry, I must refer to my reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous Question of Monday last.†

  Pole Carew and Butler Estate, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that immediately subsequent to the purchase agreement on the agricultural portion of Pole Carew and Butler Estate, Banteer, county Cork, similar agreements were signed by the inhabitants of the village for the purchase of their houses; and that within the past week an official of the Estates Commission visited the place and informed the village occupiers that their purchase agreements are to be set aside and they must revert to the old terms of tenancy; and, if so, will he say if this inspector has acted with the knowledge and sanction of the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what explanation can the Commissioners give for not adhering to the purchase system in this case.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The inspector did not inform the village occupiers referred to that their purchase agreements were to be set aside, but, in the ordinary course, he asked each tenant whether he would be prepared to pay the purchase-money in cash if the Commissioners should decline to sanction the advances applied for. Until the inspector's full report on the estate has been received, the Commissioners will not give a decision in the matter.

  Major Philipps' Estate, County Kilkenny.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
  †See page 464.

  1209
  to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Major Philipps, of Gale, Cashel, county Tipperary, has offered his estate at Foyle, county Kilkenny, for sale to the Estates Commissioners; if so, whether the Commissioners sent their inspector to visit the estate; and if any offer has been made to the owner for his interest.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No application in respect of this estate has been lodged with the Commissioners.

  Queen's County Evicted Tenants.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the number of applications for reinstatement received by the Estates Commissioners from evicted tenants in Queen's County; and how many of these have been reinstated or provided with equivalent farms.
  MR. WALTER LONG: A hundred and sixty-eight applications have been received, and two evicted tenants have been reinstated.

  Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has power to call for detailed accounts of the transactions of the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees and to audit them; and, if so, whether he can state when the detailed accounts were last submitted and audited.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The Treasury does not possess the power referred to.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the Treasury no power to call for these accounts?
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No, Sir.
  MR. MACVEAGH: And no power at all over the trustees?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that, by the
  1210
  terms of the trust, the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees are required, as a precedent to suing for rates, to obtain from the Rolls Court a certified copy of the rate struck, he will say whether any such certified copy has been at any time issued by the Rolls Court; and, if so, when.
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works are unaware whether any such certified copy has been issued.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the Treasury any power to compel the trustees to carry out the terms of their trust?
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I think the hon. Member is confusing the Board of Works with the Drainage Trustees?
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the Board of Works any jurisdiction over the trustees?
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I think not.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the statutory obligations imposed upon the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees with regard to the publication of their accounts, the lodging with certain clerks of the peace and with the Rolls Court of a copy of the rate struck, and the laying before this House every year of a detailed statement of their income and expenditure, were last discharged.
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: This Question refers to the legal obligations of the trustees, on which the Government have no authority to advise.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to answer the latter part of the Question?
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I hope I may be able to do so to-morrow.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees, and how many of them are

  1211
  land agents; and whether their accounts are subject to publicity or audit.
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The number of trustees is fifteen. I have no information as to how many of them are land agents.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I will put the latter part of the Question down to-morrow. But I would ask how this body is enabled to levy rates if nobody has control over it?
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The obligation is placed on them by statute.
  MR. FLAVIN: Who has the appointment of the trustees?
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of any further Questions.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that legal proceedings for the recovery of rates have been instituted by the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees against numerous ratepayers; and whether, in view of the failure of the trustees to fulfil their statutory obligation to lodge with the clerks of the peace for five counties and with the Rolls Court a copy of the rate struck, he will require the trustees to fulfil these obligations before continuing the legal proceedings.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works have no official information that any legal proceedings have been instituted. There are statements in the public Press to that effect.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I shall put the latter part of this Question down again to-morrow.

  Portavogie Pier, County Down.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that the new pier at Portavogie, county Down, erected by the Board of Works in Ireland, has been destroyed by the recent storm; what steps he proposes to take to rectify the injury done; and will he
  1212
  consult and be guided by the advice of local opinion as to what should be done.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works have no advice of any damage to Portavogie Pier, which is not in their charge but in that of the county authority.

  Bann Drainage Works.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total amount expended by the Board of Works on the drainage of the River Bann, the average amount annually levied by the drainage trustees, and the annual average receipts of the trustees.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The total expenditure on drainage was £158,423 and on navigation £104,374. The works carried out for this latter purpose were, to a considerable extent, also useful for drainage. The Board of Works have no information as to the last portion of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Seeing that this money is contributed by the ratepayers and that the expenditure of the Board of Works is useless, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the whole question.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The whole question is now under my consideration.

  Army Stores Wastages.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the issues involved for the public and the contractors, and the officials who are concerned, he will appoint a Select Committee of the House to make an immediate inquiry into the admitted and alleged deficiency and wastage of stores, etc., supplied to South Africa, and as to what has become of the money expended thereon.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): The proper machinery for dealing with these questions is, in accordance with constitutional

  1213
  usage, the Public Accounts Committee; and I think an additional reason for leaving these matters to that machinery arises from the fact that the Committee has been appointed, has sat, and actually begun the inquiry.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee did not last year issue its Report until after the rising of Parliament?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to think that any other Committee would be quicker in the presentation of its Report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the Public Accounts Committee the same power as a Select Committee to procure papers and command the attendance of witnesses?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is any difference in these powers, the difference is in favour of the Public Accounts Committee.
  *SIR A. HAYTER: May I say that the Public Accounts Committee met on Friday and proceeded to inquire into the matters referred to in the Question. General Sir William Butler, the Chairman of the War Office Committee, attended, and stated that he had six particular cases upon which he desired to lay a statement before the Committee, but that it would be impossible for him to do so before the end of April. It would be impossible, he said, to hurry the officers and others, and though the cases were different, most of the witnesses were the same. The Committee thought General Butler's reasons were unanswerable, and proceeded to inquire into one or two other and smaller cases. I hope the Prime Minister will understand that it will be impossible for the Public Accounts Committee to present any Report before Easter, but immediately General Butler presents his Report the Committee will proceed to deal with it, and issue an interim Report.

  Discharges from Dockyards.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as he is unable to include the case of the
  1214
  Government workers at the dockyards in the inquiry now being conducted by the Cabinet, he will, pending the result of such an extended inquiry, intervene, as he did in the case of Sparkbrook, Birmingham, to prevent wholesale and sudden discharges of men employed in the dockyards.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member is not accurately representing the action I took in connection with Enfield and Sparkbrook. As regards the discharges from the dockyards, they are made in accordance with public necessities, and gradually, and endeavour is made to make any hardship that may ensue as even as possible over the dockyards concerned.

  Army Clothing Vote.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to propose any arrangement by which a brief discussion may take place on the Clothing items of Vote 7, replacing the former Clothing Vote, so as to prevent the loss of any opportunity of discussing them in the year 1905–6.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR was understood to reply that Vote A and Vote 1 would be taken next Monday, and probably it would be the best course to discuss the Clothing Vote on that. He believed it was usual—but probably the right hon. Baronet was a great authority and knew if it were so—for the Chairman to allow a general discussion on Vote A and Vote 1.
  MR. WHITLEY: But owing to the operation of the guillotine only one afternoon is given for the discussion on Vote A.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: There is the Report stage.
  MR. BUCHANAN: We have the promise of the First Lord that on Vote 1 we shall be allowed to discuss the whole Army policy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not the authority in this matter, but I have done everything that can be done to facilitate

  1215
  discussion. I must, however, be facilitated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know the rules as well as I do.

  Public Accounts Committee—Mr. Gibson Bowles' Withdrawal.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give an undertaking that, in accordance with the recommendation, dated July 7th, 1903, of the Committee on National Expenditure, at least one day will this year be provided for the consideration by the House of Commons of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee, and an opportunity be given of taking a decision upon the recommendations therein.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is really nothing for me to add to the general line of policy I have before suggested to the House, and which I am sure my hon. friend will deem to be reasonable. If the House generally desires it, I shall be happy to place at the disposal of the House one of the days allotted to Supply. If the House does not desire this, I should be very glad to find another opportunity, but in the present state of business I can give no pledge at all on the subject. The favourable wish I have expressed must not at some future time be taken as implying a willingness to sacrifice even greater interests to meet the wishes of my hon. friend.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, which is purely hypothetical and founded on conjecture. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with the Patronage Secretary with a view to the withdrawal of my name from the Committee, upon which it was placed without my consent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure there are methods by which my hon. friend can be relieved from the labour of serving on the Committee if he does not desire to serve upon it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do most earnestly desire to serve on the Committee, but the condition upon which I undertook to serve last year was broken, and, as I have no promise that the condition
  1216
  will be fulfilled this year, I desire to be excused from serving.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington): May I explain that I approached my hon. friend early in the session with regard to his serving on the Public Accounts Committee, and my hon. friend then said he was willing to serve if a special day were set apart for the discussion of the Report of the Committee. There was a strong desire in the House that the Public Accounts Committee should consider the Report with the least possible delay (the Report of the Auditor-General on the Wastage of Stores), and therefore it was necessary to appoint that Committee at once. As my hon. friend was out of town, I nominated him for the Committee, and wrote to him telling him that I had done so, because this Report was one in which he took great interest and one in regard to which his services would be eminently useful. I told my hon. friend that if the Prime Minister was unable to give a special day for the discussion of the Report it would be perfectly open to him to withdraw from the Committee. Indeed, I think he might have complained had I failed to nominate him. I think my hon. friend should adopt that course, and I believe it is the easiest, safest, and most courteous course that could be adopted.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he had not charged his right hon. friend with discourtesy towards himself. He was not willing to serve on the Committee, except on the condition that there should be a day for the discussion of the Report. He understood his right hon. friend's kindness in putting his name on the Committee, and his right hon. friend would appreciate his desire to withdraw from the Committee, as the condition had not been fulfilled.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners—Cost of Administration.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the average administrative expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England,

  1217
  paid out of their common fund (including fees to architects and surveyors and such legal expenses as were defrayed from the said fund) during the financial years 1902, 1903, and 1904 were more than £50,000 per annum; and that the total administrative expenses of the Commissioners paid out of the above-mentioned fund, and including the above-mentioned expenses, for the years 1890 to 1904, both inclusive, amounted to nearly £750,000; and, if so, whether, having regard to the importance to the parochial clergy of an economical administration of the funds and properties of the Commissioners, he will direct an inquiry by the Treasury into the present administration thereof, or appoint a Commission or Committee for that purpose.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to say that the average administrative expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners appeared to have been as stated in; the Question. The total administrative expenses had increased, but he was informed that a largo share of the administrative expenses of the Commissioners was attributable to sales and purchase of land and other transactions for the benefit of their estates. He saw no reason far an inquiry.

  UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
  It being now five minutes to three o'clock, four starred Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War and one addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies remained unanswered.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury an urgent Question relating to business? He will observe that a large number of Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War have been shut out to-day, and this has happened on several occasions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not an urgent Question; it is one that should be put on the Paper. It cannot be put now.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid there was to be a debate to-morrow on the Statement of the Secretary of State for War, and it
  1218
  was found that unless they were put down earlier on the Paper, there would be no chance of receiving Answers to I these important Questions.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That debate seems to be an admirable opportunity for asking the questions. Moreover, the Answers will appear in print to-morrow.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Is it not possible for the House to select certain Questions which are to be answered.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a question of practice which cannot be raised by asking, after five minutes to three, Questions which are not urgent.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: May I ask, Sir, by whose directions the order of Questions is put down on the Paper?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That, again, is not urgent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Do I not understand, Sir, that it has been left by the House in your discretion, and that the order of Questions is arranged by the Clerks at the Table, subject to your approval? Was it not by your direction that Questions addressed to the Prime Minister were fixed to commence at No. 45? And were not the first Questions down to-day some addressed to the Lord-Advocate, which do not deal with very lively topics?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Three Navy Votes are, I understand, down to-night, but they appear as non-effective Supply. I suppose they will not be proceeded with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They were put down because last Thursday the Supply business on the Paper was concluded some time before twelve o'clock, and we were subjected to considerable criticism because there was no other Supply down. We desire to avoid such criticism being levelled against us on any future occasion, and have there it fore put these Votes down to-night.

NEW BILL.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Taxation and Purchase of Land by Local Authorities," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Levy, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Toulmin, and Mi. George White; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that if over a Consolidated Fund Bill needed special consideration it was the present one. This was the first Consolidated Fund Bill, to his knowledge, in the history of Parliament, the discussion on which would be cut short by the guillotine. There was some misconception as to the importance of this Bill, at any rate outside the House. It was supposed that the proceedings in Ways and Means, on which the Bill was founded, were mere formalities, and that the Second and Third Readings were occasions on which anything could be talked about. But the truth was that this Bill was one of the safeguards provided by the Constitution for securing the control of the House of Commons over the administration of public monies. To get money in Supply was a comparatively small thing, but it was only by this Bill that the money was actually obtained from the National Exchequer, and that showed the extreme jealousy which attached to the appropriation by the Government of the funds of the nation. Every Bill of this kind sanctioned issues from the fund which were exactly equivalent to the Votes already granted in Supply. The obvious intention of the constitutional practice in this regard was that the issues
  1220
  out of the fund should be used only for the purposes authorised by the Votes in Supply. No doubt there was a practice in the Army and Navy Departments by which they interchanged grants of money obtained in Supply; but, on the present occasion, grants out of the Consolidated Fund for one purpose were going to be used deliberately for other purposes, and the sanction of the House was, for the first time, being asked to this unusual proceeding. It was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend this Bill, and he would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the sum of over £28,000,000 asked for in this Bill was the aggregate of two Votes—the Vote for the Civil Services and Vote 1 for the Navy. There was no provision for the Army at all. Had it ever happened that on the first day of a new financial year the Army had been left in such a condition—without having obtained any grant from the Consolidated Fund. He wished to know whether, on April 1st in any previous year, the Army had been left without an ad hoc grant from the Consolidated Fund to meet Army expenses for the coming year. He believed it had never before happened. An excessive provision was now asked for for the Civil Services—twenty-three and a half weeks Supply instead of two or three months, the constitutional limit, in order that the money might be applied as it was last year to the purposes of the Army, and possibly of the Navy also. He protested against this practice of applying money, voted by Parliament for one purpose, to totally different purposes. The Vote was a bogus Vote, in so far as it was not wanted for the Civil Service at all, and it had been swollen to its present dimensions in order that the money might be used for Army purposes. It was a novel system, and he believed an unconstitutional one, and it certainly required an explanation from the Government. He had not moved a reduction on the Vote on Account because when such a Motion had been decided it would have precluded the challenging of items. He would do so, however, if it were in order, on the Committee stage of this Bill. It might be suggested that there was a precedent for this in what had been done

  1221
  last year, but he submitted that the precedent was worthless and that what was done was a gross abuse of practice. The truth was that the Scottish Education Bill was dropped last year simply because it would have taken up three days longer, so close had the Government got to the end of their tether—and have rendered an additions Appropriation Bill necessary.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESagreed that the Bill was one of extreme importance and that the Second Reading could not be considered a mere formality Theoretically there was no amount fixed in the Bill at present, the figures being in italics, so that an Amendment to reduce the amount could hardly be shut out in Committee. Still, he understood the hon. Member for Dundee had not moved its rejection. He felt bound to support the Second Reading of the Bill, as otherwise the Government would not be able to comply with the law, although the Government were not entitled, by their conduct in regard to this Bill and to Supply this session, to any great indulgence. But undoubtedly it raised serious questions. The old practice of the House was to grant the Government a Vote on Account for two months at the outside, the amount of which was usually from £3,000,000 to £5,000,000. This involved a second Vote on Account, so that there was a Consolidated Fund Bill in March, and a second in May, and, finally, of course, there was the Appropriation Bill at the end of the session, which he suggested was very like the Highlander's knife; it had had a great many new blades and new handles, yet it was just the same knife—altered. That practice lasted till 1897, when the Government asked for a Vote on Account which would carry them on for some five months, and so got rid of the necessity for one of the Consolidated Fund Bills. This was a very serious matter. It had enormously diminished the control of Parliament over the Government, especially as, by the new rules, the Vote on Account could only be discussed for one day, and the humour of the thing was illustrated by the fact that the now rule was put forward by the Government as compensation to it for the enormous advantages given
  1222
  the House for the discussion of Supply. The result was that instead of having two unlimited discussions, the House would only have one discussion, and that would be limited to one day. The effect of that must be loss of control over expenditure.
  Then, again, the Bill authorised the issue of £28,798,000 composed of Supplementary Estimates for 1904–5, a Vote on Account, and a sum for the Navy. That was very different from the relatively small sums which used to be voted as a Vote on Account. It brought a new principle and a new consideration into play; and the House ought not to pass such an enormous sum without attaching appropriation to it. The sums were ear-marked in the Vote; but they were not ear-marked in the issue. The House gave this £29,000,000 to the Government; they authorised the Treasury to borrow on it; but they did not ear-mark a single penny of it. It was the principal and most effectual work of the control exercised by Parliament that every penny of this money should be ear-marked for a particular purpose; and should not be applied to any other purpose. That was exceedingly important, however able the Ministers concerned might be. Formerly, when a Vote on Account was small, the necessity which existed now for appropriation did not arise, as any abuse that might occur could not be very great; but when it was proposed to vote such an enormous sum as that before the House, the House ought to seriously consider whether they ought not to attach to the Bill the condition of appropriation.
  The Bill was far more than an issue Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 authorised the Treasury to issue £29,000,000; and Clause 3 authorised the Treasury to borrow from any person the total amount authorised. He quite recognised that there must be some Vote on Account; and also that the Treasury should have borrowing powers; but up to 1902 such powers were strictly limited to borrowing for one quarter only. The wording of the Act always was that the sum borrowed should be repaid in the next succeeding quarter. It was only in August, 1902, that the

  1223
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed for the first time an entirely new set of clauses, the effect of which was that the Treasury, or, in other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was given power to borrow for the whole of the year. The result was to increase the borrowing powers from a three months range of action to a conceivable nine months range of action. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not dispute the accuracy of that description. When these clauses were proposed he took considerable objection to them, although he did not feel it right to divide the House against them. The reason given for them was that the Treasury could borrow under more favourable circumstances. That, no doubt, was so, but the power of borrowing was a dangerous power to give at all. It really ought not to be extended by this House, but ought to be restricted; and this special class of borrowing was especially dangerous, because it added to the floating debt, the very worst form of debt, for which no security was given, but which was contracted on the I.O.U. of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Treasury Bills. That had been one of the causes why the floating debt had attained such tremendous dimensions. In his opinion, the House ought to go back to the old system which existed before 1902. The reasons for going back were becoming stronger and stronger every day, and they were especially strong as regarded the present period. When the Bill went into Committee he would certainly make an attempt to alter the clauses back to their old form, and to restore the borrowing powers of the Treasury to what they were before 1902. The danger was not so much from overtaxation as from over-indebtedness, and this particular form of indebtedness was the most dangerous form of all. He had restricted himself entirely to the financial aspects of the Bill. It was an extremely important Bill and was worthy of the attention of the House.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he desired to point out that under this Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1224
  would have no means of paying the Army. The Act on which he relied for that broad statement was the Public Accounts and Charges Act, 1891. Section 2 of that Act was very precise; and provided that every sum issued in pursuance of that Act should be applied to making good the amount so granted at the time of issue. Under the Vote on Account money was taken for the Navy and the Civil Services; but there was no Vote for the Army. The practice of the Treasury had been to treat the whole of the Army Votes as one Vote, and the whole of the Navy Votes as another Vote, and to transfer money voted for the Navy to expenditure on the Army. That was, however, based upon a particular section of the Appropriation Act; and without such an Act the power of the Treasury to treat the Army Votes as one Vote lapsed. There was no general authority to the Treasury to treat the Army Votes as one Vote; and at present the Treasury had no power to issue out of the Consolidated Fund any money for the Army at all. An issue could only be made by the Consolidated Fund Bill they were now asked to pass. But the issue by this Bill was governed by the Public Accounts and Charges Act, under which no issue could be made except in respect to Votes that had been granted. At the end of this year the Treasury would have had granted Vote 1 of the Navy and Vote 7 of the Army. They would therefore be in a position to pay the Navy but not to feed them, and to feed and forage the Army but not to pay them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps tell the House, if he proposed to pay the Army and feed the Navy, what had been the practice of the Treasury. Apparently the Government had not taken into account the full meaning of the Act of 1891 which, intentionally or not, limited and defined what the practice of the Treasury should be with regard to issues from the Exchequer, and with regard to appropriations-in-aid. He did not know whether he had made the point he had raised clear to the right hon. Gentleman, or whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to cite the statutory authority on which he relied for such issues as he would make to the Navy and Army until the

  1225
  Appropriation Act was passed. He fully admitted that the practice of the Treasury was necessary, if the Navy and the Army were to be maintained between the months of March and August, but he submitted that for that purpose an Amendment to the Consolidated Fund Bill was required. As the Consolidated Fund Bill now stood, the right hon. Gentleman would be compelled to commit an illegal act. As he understood, an Amendment to the Consolidated Fund Bill would be out of order and could not be discussed, and that being so, in order to bring this question to an issue, he had no alternative but to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six mouths.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said anyone who had listened to the present discussion would agree with the hon. Member for Dundee that the financial procedure of the House was cumbrous, complicated, and excessively difficult of comprehension. It was hedged round with formalities and so called securities which might at one time have been necessary for preserving the control of the House over expenditure by the Government or the executive action of the Government, but which he thought took up a good deal of time—time which might be spent more usefully in other ways—without in any way adding to the authority or influence of Parliament. The procedure commenced in Committee of Supply when the Vote was proposed for the services of the year. Following upon that stage came the Report of that Vote to the whole House, when the assent of the House to the Resolution of the Committee had to be obtained. It might be thought that that would be sufficient for the purpose, but then came
  1226
  a further stage, itself divided into several stages, when the Government had to ask power to issue the money which the House had already voted. That was the stage when the Consolidated Fund Bill was dealt with. The Appropriation Bill was a Bill not merely to authorise the payment of money but to see that the money authorised was appropriated to specific purposes. The House was now engaged upon the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and it was true that in that Bill to-day was included the total sum of money actually voted by the House for Supply services, and it was provided that the money authorised under the Consolidated Fund Bill should be available for the purposes which had been approved by the House previous to the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It might be true that while the total in a Bill like the present was arrived at by adding together the sums voted on account of the Army, Navy, Civil Service, and Supplementary Estimates of expenditure, there would be power under the Act to issue money to the extent of the total sum, not limited to the exact proportion of the Votes already passed. That might or might not be a desirable thing, but he failed to see how the business of the country could be carried on without a revolutionary change in Parliamentary procedure unless such authority was given. It was quite obvious that the House could not pass the whole of the Supply for a year until the commencement of that year. If the same power was not given in the future as was given in the Consolidated Bills in the past it would be impossible for the business of the country to be carried on.
  It was complained that in former years they used to have not a single Consolidated Fund Bill but two or three in the course of a session, before coming to the final Appropriation Bill. He might at once say he was afraid there would have to be a second Consolidated Fund Bill this year, though he greatly regretted the necessity. It was not the intention of the Government that such a necessity should arise when the present rules of procedure were passed. Under the old arrangement

  1227
  Votes A and 1 of the Army and Navy were taken together with a small Vote on. Account at the expiration of the financial year, and there was no further opportunity of discussing Supply until quite the end of the session when the discussion was often perfunctory. By the new rules a weekly opportunity had been given to the House to discuss those Votes of Supply hon. Gentlemen desired to criticise. The First Lord of the Treasury at that time announced that part of his intention in framing the new rules was that a single Vote on Account should be taken to cover the whole of the session, from which it followed that there would be only one Consolidated Fund Bill before the final Appropriation Act.
  The hon. Member had asked if there was any precedent for the position in which they were with regard to the Army Votes to-day. He had not looked up the precedents, and he did not think there was, but the present position was in part due to the endeavour which had been made this year to meet the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, Last year the Public Accounts Committee objected to the large use made of the powers of the Treasury to give provisional sanction to the transfer of available Supply from particular Army Votes to other Army Votes and from particular Navy Votes to other Navy Votes. The form in which the Army Supplementary Estimates were brought in this year was one desired by the Public Accounts Committee in order that at the earliest possible moment the sanction of the House should be asked for the événements which had taken place, instead of that sanction being asked by Resolutions immediately preceding the introduction of the Appropriation Bill at the end of the session. He thought the experiment had not been wholly satisfactory The hon. Member for Exeter recently complained of the difficulty of understanding the accounts, or even of apprehending the purposes for which the money the House was asked to vote was required. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been anxious that the attention of the House should be called by the Supplementary Army Estimates to the particular
  1228
  subject which necessitated their presentation. As long ago as his Budget statement of last year he announced that a Supplementary Estimate would be required for Somaliland. He thought that the practical and business-like way of treating the £550,000 required would have been to put down a Vote for that amount for "operations in Somaliland." Every Member of the House would then have known in advance for what the money was required, and what discussion would be germane to the Vote. He was told, however, that if he insisted on having the Vote presented in that form, he would be met by the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, and that before the Supplementary Estimate was discussed at all, at least a day would be spent in discussing the form in which it was presented. The Estimate was therefore introduced in the form which it was understood the Public Accounts Committee approved, but he did not think the result had been satisfactory. The discussion wandered over a very wide area, covering almost every Army Vote; it was an anticipation of the natural and proper discussion on the Army Votes for next year, and in consequence of the introduction of this extraneous matter it was very late in the day before the discussion of Somaliland affairs was reached at all, It was, in fact, the abnormal length of that discussion which had brought the House to the position on which the hon. Member for Dundee had commented. More days would have been given to the discussion of Supply and finance before Easter in the present session than had been allotted in any but four of the last fourteen years. The Supplementary Estimates were smaller this year than they had been for many years past, and yet the time which had proved ample for the discussion of bigger Estimates in other years had been insufficient this year. The Government had therefore been driven to adopt the course explained by the Leader of the House, which he believed was unprecedented—certainly he was not prepared to cite a precedent across the floor of the House.
  The hon. Member for North Monmouthshire had asked by what authority he would pay the Army out of the Victualling Vote. He would do so by exactly

  1229
  the same authority as his predecessors had done for many years past. That had been the accepted financial practice of the country; it had received each year the subsequent ratification of Parliament by the Appropriation Act, and it had always been sanctioned by the Public Accounts Committee; and as far as he knew, there had never been any question as to its propriety, or, indeed, its absolute necessity; and the hon. Gentleman himself, though he said an interesting point could be raised as a constitutional technicality, did not suggest that the practice could be dispensed with.
  MR. McKENNAsuggested that the form of the Consolidated Fund Bill might be so altered as to cover the illegality.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdeprecated any alteration in these annual Bills unless a clear necessity were shown. Such alterations were made a subject of comment, generally of criticism, and were almost always instrumental in occupying time which might be more usefully devoted to other matters. He therefore would not propose any innovation in constitutional practice unless he was convinced of its clear and urgent necessity.
  He came now to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn with reference to the change made in the Consolidated Fund Bill in 1902, at the instigation of his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol. The hon. Member was, under a complete misapprehension in speaking of that alteration as having had the effect of adding to the floating debt of the country. It did not authorise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow a single pound more than he could otherwise have done. The contention of the hon. Member was that that alteration authorised the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow up to the close of the financial year instead of borrowing merely for one quarter and repaying the money so borrowed the next, and that in that way it greatly reduced the control of the House over the Government of the day. Under the old system what the Government borrowed in the first quarter of the year they had to repay in the second. But they did it by borrowing again; so that it simply meant that
  1230
  instead of borrowing at once for nine months, they borrowed for three, and I then for three months again, and then for another three. As the House was doubtless aware, the necessity for these temporary borrowings arose from the fact that whilst expenditure was heavy in the early part of the year the revenue collection was not equal to the outgoings, and therefore the ingathering of the revenue had to be anticipated by borrowing. This necessity would always exist as long as the income-tax, which was collected mainly in the last quarter of the year, remained at its present high figure, and formed so important a part of the financial system of the country. The course to which the hon. Member for King's Lynn took exception did not increase the borrowing power of the Government or relieve them of the control of the House of Commons. What it did was to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow in more than one way and on more than one security. Formerly he could borrow only on his personal I.O.U. That being a security he could not offer in the market, he was obliged to have recourse to the Bank of England to meet the whole of his needs, and when those needs were as great as they had been of recent years, this method of financing the Exchequer in anticipation of revenue was not only inconvenient but uneconomical. By the powers taken in 1902 the Chancellor of the Exchequer was given greater latitude as to the security on which and the way in which he could borrow, and by so doing the disturbance and inconvenience to the money market were lessened, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled to raise the money he required on more economical terms. He could not be a party to the reversal of the decision then taken, and he hoped that on further consideration, the House being assured that no additional borrowing powers were given to the Government by its renewal, the hon. Member would not persist in his endeavour to eliminate this clause from the Bill.
  MR. McKENNAexpressed his satisfaction with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEdesired to call attention to the necessity for more drastic action than had yet been taken in the way of calling upon the local education authorities to make adequate provision for the proper feeding of children in elementary schools. At the present time all that was being done in this direction was being done by voluntary effort. It had been shown that voluntary effort was no longer adequate to meet the necessities of the case. He hoped that it would not be urged that nothing could be done without fresh legislation. He was perfectly alive to the fact that it was not competent for him to discuss legislation upon the Bill now before the House, but he held that the Education Department could do a great deal more even with the powers they now possessed. He did not think that the Education Department single and alone could do much, but in conjunction and co-operation with other Departments of State, he thought a very great deal could be done to meeting the most necessitous aspects of the case. The demand for the proper feeding of school children was based upon two main grounds: (1) the plea of humanity, and (2) economy. With regard to the humanitarian argument, he anticipated that there would not be any difference of opinion in any section of the House. They would all agree that it was criminal, let the cause be what it might, that children should be allowed to go improperly fed and uncared for. On the ground of economy, it stood to reason that, having provided a great system of educational machinery, they should be prepared to make the most of it by not merely equipping the schools so as to enable them to give the best education, but by properly feeding the children so as to enable them to receive the education provided for them. That was the respect in which this question was so important.
  It might be alleged that to undertake the feeding of school children was to interfere with parental responsibly.
  1232
  That argument was commonly used in this and various other connections, but they never heard this argument except when it was a case of an attempt to save the rates. When a poor widow was called upon to go out to work for her family to prevent a home being broken up they heard nothing of parental responsibility. Upon the proper feeding of children depended the future stamina and morale of the race. The money spent upon the feeding of children would return to the nation tenfold in days to come, whereas if they starved the children now they would have incompetent men in the future. As a matter of economy, he submitted that the nation would be well advised if it insisted that the children attending our elementary schools should be properly fed as a primary condition to endeavouring to educate them efficiently. This view was supported by the Report of the Royal Commission upon Physical Training which applied to Scotland, and by the Inter-Departmental Committee which applied to the whole kingdom.
  With the sanction of the House he would again call attention to some of the recommendations of those two bodies bearing upon the responsibility of the Education Department and the Government authorities. The Royal Commission upon Physical Training in Scotland reported that a large number of important witnesses, including members of the medical profession, inspectors of schools, representatives of school board teachers and others were questioned on the subject with regard to the effects of malnutrition upon youths, and they were unanimously of opinion that it was most desirable that increased attention should be paid to the feeding of children attending State-aided schools. This Commission entirely endorsed that view. He desired to ask the Minister for Education whether his Department had taken any action in the way of calling the attention of the local education authorities to this aspect of the question. If not, he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Education Department to take any action in connection with this recommendation. In regard to the Inter-Departmental Committee upon Physical

  1233
  Deterioration, on July 20th last year they recommended—
  "That the evils arising from underfeeding of children are so widespread, and in certain localities so pressing, that some authoritative intervention is called for at the earliest possible moment to secure that the education of the children who are obliged to attend school shall not be hampered and retarded by the physical condition thereby engendered."
  That was eight months ago, and he wished to know if anything had been done to give effect to that recommendation. If not, what use was it appointing Royal Commissions and Inter-Departmental Committees, thus spending the money of the country and wasting the valuable time of the Commissioners? The Minister for Education had informed them that ho had appointed a second Inter-Departmental Committee with the object apparently of finding out what the first Committee recommended. This second Committee had been appointed to find out whether relief for poor children could be better organised without any charge upon the public funds, both generally, and especially in regard to children who, from malnutrition, were below the normal standard. Why was this limitation imposed? Why were the Committee not allowed to make a full inquiry into the entire question whether it involved a charge upon the rates or otherwise? Upon a question which had excited such widespread interest, and which was in no sense a Party question but a subject upon which depended not merely the physique of the people but the defensive power of the nation, why should the Board of Education impose such a limitation which would either stultify the Report of that Committee or involve the appointment of another Committee before a final decision could be arrived at. There was a further recommendation in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which stated that—
  "A working adjustment between the privileges of charity and the obligations of the community might be reached,"
  That obviously referred to some working agreement that the school authorities should make provision for cooking the meals, and providing a room in which the meals could be served, on the condition and understanding that the cost of the meals came from public charities. Had the
  1234
  Minister for Education done anything to carry into effect that recommendation? All through the winter they had had these funds at work in every big centre of population in England and Scotland. They had had the teachers and the staffs of the schools voluntarily doing their best to assist in feeding the children. Everybody appeared to have been anxious to take a share of the work except the Education Department, which ought to have shown most anxiety of all. He asked the hon. Baronet whether his Department had circularised the educational authorities showing how their own efforts could be co-ordinated with those of private charity, so as to make the most of the means at their disposal until some final arrangement had been reached. In connection with the higher-grade schools the local authorities now built dining-rooms and made provision for meals being supplied at the cost of the scholars. If that could be done in the higher class schools, why did not the Minister of Education instruct the local authorities that it was equally competent in elementary schools. That was a matter respecting which they had a right to complain. Paragraph 362 of the Report said—
  "In some districts it still might be the case that such an arrangement would prove inadequate. The extent of the concentration of the poverty might be too great for the resources of local charity, and in these, subject to the consent of the Board of Education, it might be expedient to permit the application of municipal aid on a larger scale."
  Did the powers possessed by municipal authorities enable them to provide money to meet the case of necessitous children? The city of Bradford corporation had endeavoured to meet the demand for meals by voting a surplus of money, in the form of salary to the Lord Mayor, on the understanding that the sum so voted was to be handed over to the education authorities and applied to the feeding of children. That was one way in which, without fresh Parlimentary powers, money might be raised. There was another. In addition to the relieving of destitute children by the boards of guardians, he submitted that the President of the Local Government Board, in conjunction with the Minister of Education, was empowered to make grants of money to school

  1235
  authorities or to private committees to enable them to feed starving children. The Local Government Board might authorise the granting of a sum of money by any board of guardians to any institution which promised by its operations to save the rates. He submitted that since children whose parents were destitute had a right to come upon the rates for support, it was quite within the scope of the powers of the Local Government Board to authorise grants in the way he had indicated. He hoped the Board of Education could take the initiative in this matter and instruct the local education authorities as to their powers, duties, or responsibilities.
  It was commonly supposed, now that the unemployed difficulty was subsiding, the winter was passing, and the spring was upon us, that the need for making provision for hungry children was passing away. There could not be a greater fallacy than an assumption of that kind. The poor and, in a special degree, hungry children were with us all the year round, and one of the strong objections to leaving the matter to be dealt with by private charity was that it was only on the occurrence of a crisis that private charity operated, and that while the need was continuous relief was spasmodic and very uncertain. In Manchester he found that the local education authority provided during the winter months 109,000 free meals to children at a cost of £1,010. At the beginning of March the provision of free meals had to stop, not because the need for them had ceased but because the fund had dried up, and during all the months that were to come until the beginning of next winter the harrowing spectacle would be seen in Manchester of children going to school day by day, not, perhaps, starving, but always improperly fed, and the teachers were set the task of educating the mind while the physical condition of the child was such as to render education an absolute impossibility. Surely it was time, when we had commenced to build up an educational system in some manner worthy of the nation, that we should try to be logical for once and equip the schools fully by equipping the child efficiently. In West Hartlepool 1,200 children received one meal
  1236
  each day all through the winter from charitable funds. The important point to which he wished to direct attention was that, while these children were still upon the roll of necessitous cases, the charitable fund was drying up. These poor little mites were only having their free breakfast three times a week now instead of six times. This happened because the matter, though one of public interest, was left to charity which dried up, and charity was very apt to dry up when sentiment was taken out of the appeal. In Leith the number of children who had to be provided with meals was, on an average, 600 a day all the year round, and in order to meet the cost between £800 and £900 was required. The School Board of Leith had issued a circular appealing for funds, and up to the present the amount received was £190. These cases could be multiplied indefinitely. It was not only London that was clamouring for relief in this matter; the demand was coming from all parts of the country.
  While all classes should be interested in the question, the working classes were interested in a special degree. They heard about inemcients and people who were unemployable, but if children were starved how could the youth of the country grow up physically strong and able to maintain their place in the industrial struggle? He hoped the Education Department would say boldly and straight out, "Here is a need that exists, no matter how it has arisen, and it is the business of the State to take upon itself the responsibility of having that need adequately met." If the parents drank the money which ought to be spent in feeding the children, punish the parent, but do not visit the sins of the parent on the child. We could not afford to do that without serious risk. This was not a matter for private charity. The more sensitive and highly strung it was, and the more mental capacity it had, the more did a child shrink from the brand placed upon it when called upon to eat the bread of pauperism or charity, while others were enjoying that which was its by light. It was not only that they broke the child physically in that way, but they broke its spirit and destroyed its budding manhood. He hoped they

  1237
  would have from the Minister of Education some declaration of policy in regard to this great question. There was testimony accumulating on every hand that it could not be delayed or shelved with impunity. With regard to the objection that the State was taking the place of the parents, he would remind hon. Members that the State, by its action, had broken down the sense of parental responsibility in the great textile districts. That being so, the sense of parental responsibility was bound to disappear under modern conditions, and there was need for the State to step in and supply the place the parent formerly occupied. In order that the feeling of the House might be tested on the subject, he moved that the Bill be read that day six months.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that in seconding the Motion he wished to add a few words to what he had uttered on this subject on Wednesday last. He had watched the physical condition of the working classes for the last thirty years with care, and in detail pretty well every day, both as a teacher and as a member of a school board, and he had arrived at two very definite conclusions in regard to the matter. The first of these was that 80 per cent. of the people were never better off than they were to-day as regarded housing, clothing, and feeding. The effects of the system during these thirty years in the common schools had been altogether elevating, not only in regard to the children themselves, but in respect to parental obligation towards those children. He was perfectly easy in his mind as to the physical condition of four-fifths of the working classes. But he felt, indeed he might go the length of saying that he knew, that of the other fifth, in respect of their housing, clothing, and feeding, their condition was entirely hopeless, and never more hopeless than at the present time. That fifth were the children of the great slums not only in England, but in Ireland—the Physical Deterioration Committee had some very striking evidence from Ireland—and also in Scotland. These children of the slums represented a million of the children in the British Isles, and we had to concentrate our attention upon that particular million. It was no exaggeration to say
  1238
  that he positively shuddered when he contemplated the fact that here we had a million of to-morrow's citizens upon whose puny, rickety shoulders the burden of the heritage of this country inevitably rested. They were always suffering from malnutrition. In a great many cases the mothers, even if they had the right sort of material to feed these children with, would not make use of it to the best advantage, particularly in this country of England. He remembered a medical man complained to such a mother when she was giving a small child in arms some gin. She turned round upon him very sharply and said, "You dare to say to me that I don't know how to bring up children. Why, I have buried six." Apart from the fact that there was always malnutrition in the winter time, when the building and allied trades were out of work, children came to school day after day absolutely hungry. He had seen in East Bristol, when the frost first began to be keen, the children faint and even vomit not because they had too much in their stomachs, but because their stomachs were absolutely empty. That was quite a common experience.
  He would now turn to another class. The significance of the figures in the Report of the General Recruiting Officer for 1902 was very striking. In St. George's Barracks in this city in 1902, 12,951 young fellows offered themselves for enlistment and were accepted; but 4,841 or 37·4 per cent. were afterwards rejected as being unfit under a comparatively low standard. At the Hounslow Barracks 1,625 submitted themselves for enlistment in the Army and 642 were rejected or 39·5 per cent. At Newcastle-on-Tyne recruiting depot 2,012 offered themselves and 766 were rejected, or 38·1 per cent. Manchester was an extremely significant case; 4,470 young fellows offered themselves and 2,190 were rejected, or 49 per cent.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: What was the ground of rejection?
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that the grounds of rejection were set forth in great detail in the Appendix to the

  1239
  Physical Deterioration Report—narrowness of chest, lightness of physique, etc.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: Does "underage" come within the causes of rejection?
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he really could not say; but in Manchester 4,470 recruits came under inspection and 2,190, or 49 per cent., were rejected. General Sir Ian Hamilton, writing to Mr. Horsfall, although he paid a handsome tribute to the courage and endurance of the Manchester Regiment in the South African War, said he could not but feel what a shame it was that the men were so undersized. As his hon. friend would say: their spirit was strong, but their flesh was weak. At the Liverpool recruiting depot 2,164 came under inspection for the Army, and of these there were 839 rejections or 38·8 per cent. Going over to Ireland, at Belfast there were 1,443 inspections for enlistment and 542 rejections or 37·6 per cent. Without any further figures in testimony, here was a human document far more striking than the details in the Appendix to the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee. It was a letter placed in his hands a few hours ago, written on rough paper by a mother to a schoolmaster—
  "Please to excuse Fred if he is not able to do his work as he has had nothing to eat since yesterday dinner time."
  He could, as a teacher, say that he had often had a document of that kind put into his hands in regard to children; and that teachers of London all recognised that that was a familiar condition of the children.
  It was not a question in England only. In the Report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland in 1903 there was very remarkable testimony as to physical deterioration in that country, where, it anything, the people were individualistic. The Commission was appointed to consider schemes of physical training, and they might very well have made no reference to feeding, but simply said that such and such schemes were good or bad. However, directly the Commissioners came to the consideration of the schemes
  1240
  for physical training of children, the further question of feeding them at once presented itself. He himself thought that the Commissioners went outside their reference, but they unanimously recommended that something should be done to deal with this question of feeding the children, although they were most anxious that there should be nothing in the way of economic abuse. So anxious indeed were they, that they specially reserved the use of public money for that purpose, because of the exiguous terms of the reference. It was very remarkable that a Scotch Royal Commissioner should have said—
  "We can do nothing with schemes of physical training unless we first deal with the feeding of children."
  He knew that there would probably be quoted against him the opinion of Mr. Bridgeman, who said that there were now no hungry children in London. He understood that Mr. Bridgeman had so far modified that statement by saying that there were quite sufficient agencies to deal with these hungry children. If any hon. Gentleman who was inclined to quote Mr. Bridgeman would turn to page 71 of the last Report of the London School Board he would find that that Board, through a special committee appointed to consider this question, deliberately came to the conclusion that they could not safely leave the feeding of the children to charity, and that the local authorities should be allowed to deal wish this matter by means of funds placed at their disposal—taking security against anything in the nature of economic abuse. Let him read the testimony of the chairman of the Edinburgh School Board, Miss Flora Stevenson. She said—
  "Another great difficulty we have in the poorer schools is the physical condition of the children. They are half-starved and ill-clad."
  Similar testimony had been obtained from a Catholic priest, who gave evidence as to the condition of the children in the poorer parts of the great cities in Ireland. He need not labour the point further.
  He had listened with some impatience, during the discussions on the great Education Act of 1902, to the religious squabbles that went on. He insisted that the practical education

  1241
  difficulty was not religious. The real difficulty was the problem of how we could adequately deal with the physical needs of the children. Next year, or the year after, when a new Parliament, whatever its constitution might be, came to deal with these matters, there was no doubt there would be discussions as to whether there should be four trustee managers and two public managers on a school committee, or four public and two private managers. That was very important, no doubt. Or as to whether there should be inside or outside facilities for the children to receive denominational education. That, too, was no doubt important. But what was of far more importance was the physical conditions under which the children came to school. He must say that be would rather have a well set-up well clad, well fed, sturdy little Churchman than a puny, weak-kneed, narrow-chested, rickety little Nonconformist.
  Now what should we do? He knew there were great difficulties in the way. He also knew that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education was an exceedingly kind man; but, as an official, the hon. Gentleman seemed to take rather a hard, hide-bound, doctrinaire view of the functions of the State in regard to education. We had two things to do for these poor slum children. We had to take a complete record of their physical condition and place them under continuous medical supervision. In Brussels every child attending a primary school was medically examined, careful measurements taken, and the state of the eyes, teeth, and other particulars were recorded. Sixteen doctors were in constant touch with the schools, and every school had to be visited every ten days and the condition of the children recorded. In London three or four doctors were engaged in this work; but if the level of Brussels was to be reached London would have to have 100 doctors to look after the condition of the children in the elementary schools. They would have to keep the children under close medical supervision. The prime question, however, was the question of food; and, is regarded that, the sooner it was dealt with the better. He would suggest the adoption of the Parisian canteen scholar plan, which
  1242
  was partly supported by the parents, partly by voluntary contributions, and partly by the State. The schools in the poorer parts were linked together and a central dining hall was provided for each group. Any parent could get from the local Board of Works a book of coupons. If he could pay he did, if he could not, the coupons were given to him gratuitously; and there was no difference in their form, whether they were paid for or not. The teachers were also provided with coupons; and the children, instead of hanging about picking up garbage under costers' carts, as in London, were given a good meal. The system was economical for the working classes, and in time they would come to use it; and the charge on the public purse would be very small. Last year meals to the number of 8,000,000 were served under this system in Paris. The total cost was £75,000, of which the parents paid £20,000, £15,000 was received from voluntary contributions, and public funds paid £40,000. That was the system he suggested for this country. It was economical and thoroughly good business from the Imperial point of view. Why should they not adopt it? The Secretary to the Board of Education said it would break up family life. Ho could not contemplate, as an official, children gathered together and getting one square meal. That, in his own opinion, was a distant and doctrinaire view, and was only possible from the representative of a University. It was not possible to any one who knew the daily lives of the people. Where was the family life in the New Cut? Let the children be first fed, and then family life would follow.
  Another objection was that it would undermine parental responsibility. That was a very substantial objection; and he was bound to face it. But did hon. Gentlemen advocate that the present state of things should continue. Everyone knew that the children were suffering. Were they to be allowed to continue suffering in order that parental responsibility might be developed where they all knew it did not exist? People said that nothing should be done to weaken parental responsibility; and that if the children

  1243
  were fed it would only make dissolute parents more dissolute still. The very people who put that forward were the people who subscribed so liberally to charitable agencies for dealing with this very problem. What was his objection to this charitable system? First of all, real deserving cases would not come under it. They would hide themselves away. Further, charitable agencies invariably broke down. In time of stress, after a hard winter, the whole machinery was shut down when it was most needed. One agency had reduced the number of dinners by thirty per cent.; and the number of breakfasts by fifty per cent. That was invariably the case after a hard winter. His objection was, that it was this very same charitable system which emasculated parental responsibility. No man would spend money on four ale while his children wanted food without a twinge of remorse; but when he found a number of charitable agencies at work he did spend it on beer. If he said to that man, "You have to feed your children or go to goal," that would be the way to develop parental responsibility and to prevent the emasculation of parental obligation. He was deeply grateful to the benevolent people who organised these charitable agencies; but it was they who were emasculating parental responsibility. He said, "Feed the child first." He was not going to let the child remain hungry. He would then follow the parent, and say that he would have to pay for the food of his child or go to gaol. So far from that breaking up family life, he thought that in the long run, and it would not be very long, it would increase family life and the sense of parental responsibility. Take the compulsory clauses of the Education Act of 1870.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to point out to the hon. Member that these observations appear to be directed to legislation rather than to administration.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he would not pursue the subject. He would confine himself to what could be accomplished by the Board of Education, and as to the desirability of the Board assisting local authorities by providing permanent machinery and appliances for the purpose
  1244
  of assisting the children who went to school hungry. That could be done at once without legislation; and he did appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter officially with a little more warm-heartedness and full-bloodedness. He could not overestimate its national importance. It was not so much Socialism as Imperialism. It was of the highest importance to the nation that the children who hereafter would have to support the British heritage should be looked after. This year they were expending nearly £30,000,000 on the Army and £33,000,000 on the Navy; yet there was not a single farthing in the Estimates to improve the physical condition of these unhappy children; and there was not a man in the House who did not feel somewhat uneasy about it. Not out of the mouth of the gun or the rifle, but out of the mouths of babes and sucklings strength was ordained that should still the enemy and the avenger.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Keir Hardie.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid it was quite impossible for him to vote for the Amendment, but he gladly took the opportunity of calling the attention of the Government and of the House to the way in which this question and the Report of the Committee upon Physical Deterioration had been dealt with. The Report was made in July, and when Parliament met in February last it was quite evident that neither the Government as a whole nor any of the Departments concerned had treated this matter seriously with a view to carrying out any of the recommendations of that Committee. He had put Questions to the Home Secretary, the President of the Local Government Board, and the Secretary to the Board of Education, who were all concerned in this matter. All that had been done by the Home Office and the Local Government Board was to appoint a Committee on Vagrancy, and all the Board of Education had done had been to draw

  1245
  up some syllabuses and plans of instruction on hygiene and domestic economy, a work in which the Board of Education was usually very industrious, but not always entirely successful. He was not making an attack on the present Government, because they had merely treated this matter in the way in which all Governments, on both sides of the House, had always treated social questions. All were very great in the appointment of Royal Commissions and even got to the point of Departmental Committees, but when the time came for action, when the time for enquiry and evidence was past and it became necessary for some Department to take some step, they always broke down. They were "ever learning and never able to arrive at the knowledge of truth."
  What had become of the original purpose for which this Committee was appointed, which was to ascertain whether the people of this country were, physically, growing better or worse? The Committee reported that they could not tell, as no record had been kept in the past, and they recommended that a record should be kept in the schools; that a certain register should be kept and that the children should be measured and weighed. That was a thing which could be done without legislation, and a thing which in ten years would give a record by which we could tell whether the people were deteriorating or not. Another thing considered by the Committee was the frightful infant mortality in this country and the connection between that and the employment in factories and workshops of mothers soon after delivery. That was a matter which we, with other nations, so earnestly desired to alter at the Berlin Conference. The Committee did not go so far as legislation; they suggested that statistics should be obtained. There, were a good many statistics already. In Preston alone the figures were 235 per 1,000—one child in four. Had any effort been made to collect those statistics? Had the subject of collecting statistics ever been considered by any Department of State? Another recommendation was that the powers already existing for procuring a pure milk supply in great towns should be enforced. The Committee pointed out that the Local Government Board had actually
  1246
  powers under statute to move, where the local authority did not, and they recommended that they should be put into operation. The housing question was also considered, the Committee recommending that a register should be kept of the owners of slum property. It was known at present that the owners who now hid themselves were rich men and sometimes members of the Peerage, and it was thought that if their names could be brought to light, and brought before the public, shame itself would influence to better the conditions.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELL: The owners' names are on the rate books.
  MR. CROOKS: No, they are not.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought the hon. Baronet was mistaken. It was further recommended that boys of thirteen who went down into the coal pits should be subjected to the same kind of medical inspection as those who went into factories. Had that been considered? It was recommended that children in infant schools should be delivered from the bondage in which they now lived, and that no child should be forced into an infant school until it was six or seven years of age. He believed the Board of Education had dismissed one of their inspectors for recommending this, but he did not know that they had done anything more. He would not refer to smoking because that was the subject of legislation, although that legislation was left to a private Member to introduce instead of the Government bringing in a Bill, but there was also a recommendation with regard to smoking. The Committee also recommended further inquiry into certain points; had those inquiries been instituted? They recommended an inquiry into the effect of over-fatigue upon children and adults; an inquiry into the question of the sterilisation of milk, as to how it could be carried with a view to its preservation; an inquiry as to how far syphilis affected the population; an inquiry into the question of insanity, far more alarming in Ireland than in England and Scotland, which was said to be promoted by the physically bad condition

  1247
  of the people; and an inquiry on vagrancy. That was the only inquiry that had, he believed, been made. It would be quite apparent to the House that there was a great deal that might have been done and which ought to have been done with regard to the Report of that Committee which had not been seriously considered. It was a state of things that was perfectly appalling and which ought to be put an end to, and he appealed to the Government to seriously consider the Report and to put into operation those small measures which could be put into operation without expense and with only a little official trouble, and not to allow this matter to stand over any further.
  What were the Government going to do with the famishing and starving children? Some hon. Members on either side of the House still doubted the existence of starving children, but he did not think after the evidence given in the House itself by the hon. Member for Camberwell, and the overwhelming testimony of the evidence given before the Committee, anyone could doubt the existence of a state of things in which the children were too starved and in too low a condition to do the work of the school in such a way as to profit by the instruction which at such an enormous expense was provided for them at the present time. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Board of Education said that the children of the Johanna Street school, which he visited recently, appeared to be doing the ordinary school work in the ordinary way. They were doing it in the ordinary way; they had a blackboard before them and were doing sums——
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSOX, Oxford University)said the question was whether they were doing it in a proper way.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid they were doing it in a proper way; they were looking at the blackboard and trying to take in the instruction that was being administered to them. When he was there he took the liberty of getting the teachers in a corner, where they could speak freely, and every one of them told the same story—that the children were remarkably slow of
  1248
  apprehension, that it took a long while to get any rule of arithmetic or other instruction into their heads, and that when at last they did succeed, they very soon forgot everything they had learnt. That was exactly the result to be expected from trying to teach a half-starved brain. The brain could not take in ideas; it had no nutrition with which to impress the facts learnt upon the memory, and hence the impression vanished almost as soon as made. If the Secretary to the Board of Education would go into any of these schools and ask questions of the teachers, there was no doubt as to the conclusion to which he would arrive. Children were not properly fed if they had one bowl of soup a day; it might just keep them alive, but it did not afford the nutrition or food necessary to enable children to do the work which the Board of Education placed before them and for which the nation provided such immense sums of money.
  Then came the question of feeding the children. He was perfectly amazed at the hostility which the idea of feeding hungry children appeared to excite in some minds. Why should Members be misrepresented and abused because they proposed that a child should be fed before it was taught? In an anonymous letter, recently published, signed "Ex-member of the London School Board," his proposal to feed hungry children was described as one of the most pernicious that the human mind could conceive, and yet the writer finished up by proposing the very principle he had been advocating for some time past, viz., that the children should be fed, and measures taken afterwards to make the parent pay the cost, parental responsibility in that way being maintained. He was one of the strongest supporters of parental responsibility, believing as he did that the family was the proper unit of the nation, and that there could be no happy and prosperous nation unless it was composed of happy, prosperous, and virtuous families. A great objection to the communal system was that it did undermine parental responsibility; but, as bearing on this point, he would read an extract from a letter written by a lady, who, if he could mention her name, would be recognised as a great authority. Referring

  1249
  to schools in a mining district in the North of England where wages were good, she said—
  "We were in a school some time ago, in which quite half the children were wretchedly neglected, unwashed, dressed in rags, half fed, and with all their little ailments neglected. The master told us that they were often kept away from school to exercise their father's dogs. The children, pinched, stunted, in rags, might be seen exercising beautifully groomed, sleek, warmly-dressed, and well fed-dogs. The thing is so monstrous that it laughs at the limitation of speech."
  He could see no objection to feeding those half starved and neglected children, and exacting payment from the parent, if necessary, by an embargo upon one of his dogs, and he was convinced that if the local authorities, especially the Poor Law authorities, did their duty by, and recognised the rights of, these children, a great deal of the evil could be cured by mere administrative action without further legislation. These children were born with civil rights, of which from beginning to end they were deprived by their parents, public authorities, and others. Before the child was born its life was endangered by the employment of its mother in a factory; through the same cause it was deprived of its mother's milk and proper care. The number of children sacrificed in that way was enormous. When the children went to school they were entitled to be fed, by their parents in the first instance, but, if the parents omitted to do it, by a public authority. He was told that the relieving officer at Lambeth discovered and reported about two dozen starving children. The condition of these children was vouched for by Dr. Hutchinson, physician to the Children's Hospital in Great Ormonde Street, a great authority on the subject. When asked to send their relieving officer to this school the board of guardians passed a resolution, which was everything that could be desired, instructing the officer to make inquiries into the circumstances and to give immediate relief in cases of actual hunger. He was told, however, that the relieving officer went, but did not relieve a single child, although there were certainly children there who ought to have been relieved. What he wanted the President of the Local Government Board to do was to instruct the board of
  1250
  guardians that every hungry child was entitled to immediate relief.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): There is no doubt about that.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought it could not be too widely known that a hungry child had a right to immediate relief.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A destitute child.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid a destitute child was one who was hungry and who had no prospect of being fed. He desired boards of guardians to be instructed that such children were entitled to immediate relief, and that they must take measures afterwards against the parents to recover the cost or secure the infliction of punishment if there was gross neglect. He hoped also that the Board of Education would see that the condition of the law was made known to the managers and teachers of every school, and that it would be made part of their duty to report cases of destitution to the Poor Law authorities, in order that the child might be forthwith fed, and thus enabled to perform its school duties. Such a system, if properly administered and energetically carried out, would be a solution of the present difficulty.
  With regard to medical inspection, which was recommended in the strongest terms by the recent Committee, he made no attack on the Secretary to the Board of Education. He knew how limited were the hon. Gentleman's powers, and how frequently he had to defend matters he would rather not defend. His attack was directed against the Board itself. He could not understand why the Board of Education delayed matters by appointing a Committee of junior officials to revise the recommendations of the senior officials. It was a matter for grave regret that the question should be hung up by an inquiry so futile and so obviously for the purpose of delay. There was no difficulty, without any legislation, in providing for medical examinations in schools. All that was necessary was to put a clause

  1251
  in the Code stating that after a certain date, say April 1st, 1906, no grant would be paid to any public elementary school in which there was not a satisfactory system of medical inspection approved by the Board of Education. It would be a great misfortune and mistake if the Board were to lay down one cut-and-dried system of inspection for the whole of England and Wales. The system must be adapted to the conditions of the district. The kind of inspection suitable for the dense parts of Manchester or London would be wholly unsuitable for agricultural districts and places with a sparse population. The best plan would be for the Board to lay down the broad principles which such an inspection should satisfy, and leave it to the local authorities themselves to devise the particular system they would adopt. He hoped that even now, at the eleventh hour, the Board would put a clause in the Code saying that such a system of inspection would be required after a certain date next year, and that they would not stop the local authorities from devising their own system by having such a Committee as had been appointed engaged for months in the impossible task of devising a scheme suitable for every locality. He knew the difficulties in this matter, and he did not wish to reproach anyone, but he did urge the Education Department to take this Report into their consideration. They ought to proceed without any delay and with the greatest possible energy to carry out all the recommendations in the Report which could be carried out without legislation, and any legislation which was required could be left to be pushed forward at a more convenient season.
  DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he wondered what would be thought of a person who having given £1,000 for a forty h. p. motor-car refused to spend another shilling for the purpose of lubricating it in order to make it work. We were spending £4,000,000 a year upon education in London, and we were afraid to spend the extra halfpenny in the pound which was necessary to act as lubricating oil. It was quite impossible that under the present system a child starving and without food could
  1252
  be in a position to get the benefit of the splendid education now placed before it. If a child was sent in that condition to school it was absolute cruelty, because it was impossible for the underfed child to receive education just as it was impossible for it to do hard physical labour. If a cabman or a costermonger were to take his horse or donkey out to work in an unfit condition the authorities would be down upon him immediately and he would be summoned and punished with the utmost rigour of the law. The law, however, overlooked the poor starving child who had to go to school underfed and hungry, and the Education Department said that it had nothing to do with that sort of thing. He agreed with the Department that all these things should be properly gone into before definite legislative action was taken, but surely the time had arrived now to stop inquiries and to do something in the meantime. The House should not let this black spot be left upon the educational system of this country. When a child was not in a fit condition to receive instruction the little nourishment taken went to the brain, and there was nothing to nourish the muscles, and so the body suffered. The consequence was that in after life, when such children had to do work with their muscles and not, with their brain, they were unable to follow ordinary occupations. Was it surprising that they found children in this condition taking early to stimulants? When a child got a mouthful of London gin or beer into his system and felt the stimulus it gave him, he felt that it did him good and for the first time experienced a feeling which he had never experienced before. This was a dangerous condition for the child to be brought up in, and was it surprising that under these circumstances there was such a large increase in the number of unemployed and unemployable? Was it surprising that we found so many deaths in workhouses and lunatic asylums, and could we be surprised if this question became more acute year by year?
  "Rattle his bones, over the stones;
  He's only a pauper whom nobody owns."
  We could not do much for the present generation, we might turn the workhouses into labour colonies; go in for pensions

  1253
  for the aged poor and establish labour bureaux, but we could not do much more for them. We could, however, do something for the rising generation and try by humane treatment to save them from falling into the abyss into which so many had fallen at the present time. The first thing we had to do was to feed these children. Never mind whether it cost us an extra halfpenny on the rates. We should in the end get more out of it than out of any other form of expenditure. The hon. Member for the London University and himself had tried to draw up a scheme to teach children the elements of hygiene. What an irony it seemed to teach them how food acted upon the system when the only thing they had to live upon was a bit of dripping or dried fish. It was time that the educational authorities took this matter more seriously into consideration and endeavoured to do something practical instead of only promising inquiries. They ought to come down to the House and say that from that day forth they were going to put their shoulders to the wheel and do something to put a stop to the present state of things.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid the hon. Member for the Rye Division had been arguing points upon which they were absolutely agreed. They were all aware of the danger of underfeeding, but the difficulty was how was it to be met and remedied? No more important debate could take place in this House than the question of the physically unfit. They knew how physically unfit children were produced by parents addicted to drink and how they were neglected and underfed by such parents. They only needed to turn into any London slum and observe the larrikins loitering about public-houses—men who were born tired and who were no possible use—in order to understand the disadvantage of underfeeding the young. He was anxious to know what steps the Government were going to take in regard to this matter. He was glad to have an opportunity of questioning the Government upon this subject, and he believed they would get I a satisfactory answer. The right hon. I Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University delivered an interesting
  1254
  speech, in the course of which he said he had received a letter of abuse, and had been abused by other people, because he wanted to feed the hungry children. The hon. Member for the Rye Division had drawn a pathetic picture of the miseries of starving children. Hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side of the House did not object to the feeding of these poor children, but that was not the question. The question was who should pay for the feeding of these children, and upon whom should the burden fall? The more they went into this subject the more they would see that hon. Members opposite, however Socialistic they might be, did not intend to feed the whole of the children out of the rates. When they realised that, many of the objections entertained on the Ministerial side of the House were certainly waived. He understood that both the hon. Member for North Camberwell and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil contemplated that the parents should, if possible, be made to pay for the feeding of their children.
  DR. MACNAMAEA: I do.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid there were many cases where a parent, sooner than spend twopence upon feeding his child, would prefer to spend it upon a pint of beer. He agreed that such men deserved punishment, and if the feeding of children was to be conducted upon that basis then the law should insist upon the parent paying. He confessed that he had changed his opinion upon this subject. In the country districts they did not find the same amount of starvation and they were able to deal with it by private charity. In London, children often came to school hungry and they could tell this by the sad look upon their faces. Everybody agreed that that state of affairs was wrong and ought to be remedied. But the question was how, when, and where was it to be remedied? Was it to be dealt with throughout the country or only in the great towns? He believed it was only wanted in the great towns. In London especially was the pinch of hunger felt amongst the children. He used to have doubts as to whether actually starving children existed, but the had

  1255
  now convinced himself that it was absolutely true.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: No.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham doubted that statement, but let him visit his own constituency and see if he could find any hungry children there. The pinch was felt in London and in the big towns. They were spending increased sums of money upon higher education and he thought that part of that money might be allocated in a different and a better way. He did not agree that there had been an improvement in regard to parental obligations. He confessed he did not see any improvement. He did think that much might be done by mothers at home. Instead of feeding children on bread bought at the baker's, in which there was little or no nourishment, it would be very much better if mothers would give them bread of their own baking. As to the question of parental obligation, where was it to begin and end? He was afraid that if they went so far as to feed the children they should take away the last vestige of parental obligation. They had been hearing speeches on Socialism, more or less, that afternoon. For years he had heard speeches on Socialism of various sorts in the House of Commons. Socialism was creeping into the House. He could not range himself on the side of the hon Member for Merthyr Tydvil, but if the hon. Member would confine himself to the Socialism he had advocated that day he should have a more kindly thought as to his doctrines for the future. The hon. Member had stated that at Bradford the corporation voted a surplus to the Lord Mayor for the purpose of feeding children, trusting to chance and to his honour that the children would get it. He did not like that method of dealing with the question. It certainly would be better that the ratepayers should be mulcted ½d. or 1d. in the £1 fairly and squarely, and that they should feel the money would be dedicated to the purpose for which it was intended. The Minister for Education had serious responsibilities which were increasing every day. The hon. Member for the
  1256
  Rye Division said the hon. Baronet took a very high and haughty position from which he looked down.
  MR. HUTCHINSON: I said the Department did so. I should be sorry to say that the hon. Baronet did so.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he was glad the hon. Member had withdrawn the epithets so far as the hon. Baronet was concerned, but he did not think the Department deserved the description. They were very hard-working men who were anxious to carry out the duties of their office as well as they could. The matters with which they had to deal were surrounded with difficulties, many of which had not been touched upon that evening. He believed this debate would have a very good effect.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that in the Poor Law union of which he had the honour to be chairman, they found in regard to children who were underfed or not fed at all that they had an average per week of sixty-four medical orders applied for, and these not in respect of regular paupers. Multiplying that number by thirty for the whole of the Metropolis, they would see that instead of saving money by refusing to feed children the cost worked out in the other direction. There was a loss of cash, to say nothing of the valuable lives they might have fed up to become useful men and women. Sometimes it would be a blessing if the children were taken away rather than kept alive under the circumstances in which they had to live. The Home Office administration included the feeding of children at the present moment, and it was therefore wrong to pretend that there was no precedent for doing this kind of work. The argument which was always brought forward was that people should not be relieved from parental control and responsibility, but that was done in the case of children who were sent to industrial schools. He ventured to say that many of them were convicted because of their being beyond parental control. These children were fed and clothed until they reached the age of sixteen, and then the parents who had not done their duty came and took them away when they were useful boys and girls.

  1257
  If the State at present could find money to feed the child of the blackguardly father, why should not money be found to feed the child of the parent who was too poor to perform his parental responsibility? The child could not go to the Poor Law authorities and ask relief. The parent must apply.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUKsaid the teacher could apply.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that, after all, there seemed to be administrative reform which the right hon. Gentleman could bring about. If the teacher said that a child came to school hungry the matter had to be reported to the relieving officer, who had to make inquiry and satisfy himself that the child was destitute. Then the officer had to go to the child's home to see whether there was destitution there. Unfortunately, the hon. Member said, he had to go through this work every day in the week, and certainly he did not crave for it. He had been a member of a board of guardians for thirteen years, and he could assure the House that the law as it at present stood did not help them much. It was heart breaking what a man in the position of a guardian had to go through week by week in regard to poor children. If they could only get that sympathy which he knew existed in the House put into practical shape, they could settle this question within a week. They should not have Departmental Committees appointed to find out the way not to do it. There could be appliances provided at the schools for cooking food for the children who required to be fed. Bills for the cost should be sent to the parents, who could be asked to attend a committee meeting and show cause why they should not contribute. He asked that this should be done until a proper scheme could be formulated for dealing with underfed children. The first thing the Department insisted on when applications were made for relief—he did not say it was wrong—was that inquiry should be made as to whether there was real destitution. Inquiry meant delay, and a little child could not afford to go for five hours, far less a day, in a state of hunger. He appealed to the
  1258
  representatives of the Local Government Board, the Home Office, and the Education Department to meet in a room at the close of this debate and arrange; as they could if they only would, that no child after Wednesday morning this week should go to school without having a proper meal. He asked that the members of boards of guardians should be relieved from the agonising experiences which he had described. These departments could do it if only they were willing.
  MR. FINDLAYsaid he was very much interested in the debate, because he could foresee something practical emerging from it. They were all concerned in the building up of the young people of the country, and in giving them healthy minds in healthy bodies. He quite agreed with regard to what had been said on the question of food; but they did not want to tax the well-doing poor for the sins of others. At the same time, they must realise that this was a very important question. The children must be looked after if the future generation was to be of benefit to the country. He sympathised with the suggestion that medical examination should be carried on on systematic lines under the education authorities. Every practical means of safeguarding the physical and mental growth of the children should be taken. They all deplored the causes which induced parents earning good wages not to spend their money well; but why should a Christian Legislature legalise the sale of intoxicants so largely in the industrial centres, which was the cause of so much misery? If they practically considered this question they would not bolster up the brewers or any similar class, but would make it easier for the working classes to do right, and more difficult for them to do wrong. That would be touching the root of the matter. As regarded medical examination, the eyes of the pupils in the Glasgow district were examined by specialists with good results; and he hoped that this debate would have the effect of similar practical steps being adopted generally. He desired to express his entire sympathy with any proposal for bettering the condition of the children in the direction of good

  1259
  food and fresh air, so that they might be well built up.
  SIR GEORGE BAKTLEYsaid they all sympathised with the condition of the children referred to. For many years he was associated with the work of education, and he fully recognised the great difficulty of the present position. He recognised that many children went to school in a state which they all deplored. The health of the people was of vital importance; and, as one getting on in life, he could not help realising that the health and vigour of our race did not appear to have developed in the same degree, considering all that had been done during the past generation. He should be delighted to assist in any possible way he could; but in considering this matter, and while being thoroughly sympathetic, let them not lose their common sense. When all was said and done, the State must hold the parents responsible for the children they brought into the world. They would all gladly give what they could if they could do away with the evil; but if they departed from the fundamental principle of maintaining the authority and duty of parents to their families they would not be conferring a benefit on the people generally. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the present condition of London was very serious. He, himself, was not a fanatic as regarded drink; but it was idle to contend that that difficulty was not at the bottom of the matter. Every family in the country spent £20 a year on drink; he did not say that that amounted to intoxication; but it was difficult to lay down that the State should maintain the children of a family which did that. That would be a dangerous proposition. If the evil could be overcome, he should be glad to see the State pay large sums; but he was afraid that the making of it easier for children to be fed in the schools would increase the evil at home by inducing parents to send their children to secure meals where they were obtainable. He would regard that with very great apprehension. It was further quite clear to him that if they fed children who were now underfed they would, in a short time, have to feed the majority of children sent to school.
  1260
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University said that they would enforce payment from the parents. If that were done, he had nothing more to say; but did the right hon. Gentleman mean that by a strict enforcement of the law these parents would be turned into paupers and disfranchised? That should be made perfectly clear. He said emphatically that if these people had to go to the Poor Law for relief, even if the guardians got it back from them after wards, these people had been made paupers and should be disfranchised. He did not object to that, nor did he believe many persons would if they had to go to that extr me. If they were to really take this step and enforce it, they must do a great deal to enforce parental responsibility, and make parents feed their children. But if they did not enforce it, then all this would do would be to tend largely to the increase of drink. More money would be spent in drink. It was not so long ago that the House discussed the question of education, when this subject was directly touched upon. It was then said that if we gave children free education, and did away with the fees, a great deal of trouble and difficulty would also be done away with; that there would be regular attendance on the part of the children, and that the parents would be able to send their children to school with a good meal. But what had been the result? The fees, which amounted to several millions, had been done away with, the whole cost of £20,000,000 a year had been thrown upon the community, and the physical condition of the children was not better but probably worse than when their parents paid the fees.
  This was a very grave question indeed, and he fully agreed that the proper feeding of the children must be secured or the nation could not go on. If the children were not properly fed they could not grow up into healthy and vigorous men and women, but the House must not forget that one of the most important qualities of the nation, one of the qualities on which this nation had been built up, was self-reliance. Men had been taught in the past to rely upon themselves, but now it appeared to him that such action

  1261
  as was suggested tended to do away with that great quality. The children must be fed, but they must not be fed without enforcing the penalty of payment upon the parents. If that were not done the immediate result must be to undermine parental responsibility and do away with the quality of self-reliance. It must also be remembered that somebody must pay for the food. It would not come down from Heaven like manna. It must be paid for by somebody, and such a thing as paying for it out of the rates would make it harder for those persons at the bottom of the social scale who only paid their rates with the greatest difficulty. One of the most alarming things in our great cities, and especially in London, was the growth of the rates, and this suggestion would make it doubly hard on those who tried to keep their homes together respectably. He asked the House to pause before they laid down a law or passed a Resolution granting free meals to the children in this way. It was a step that would have a most serious result, and before they took that step they should be certain that they were maintaining the responsibility of the parents. It must be brought home to people that if they married and had children they would have to fulfil their duties to those children, and that if the children had to be fed at school the parents would not be allowed to go scot-free for their neglect.
  *SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid the question had been debated on both sides of the House with great interest, and no one now seemed to be afraid of going far beyond the old lines that used to be drawn on this subject, and doing something to feed the children. He would go further than the hon. Member who had just sat down, who said, "The children must be fed;" he went as far as to say the children must be saved by the State for the State, and that was the basis on which this matter must be discussed. Although the Committee reported that there was no standard by which to judge of the deterioration of our people, they brought sufficient evidence before the House to show that this was a burning question, from the point of view of the children and the nation alike, and if this discussion
  1262
  did not result in some definite plan and early action it would be most disappointing. It was with a view of making some suggestions which might bring about that action that he had risen. Before proceeding further he might say that the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Camberwell, and the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, for pressing this question so constantly upon the House by means of Questions to Ministers. It was a subject that should be pressed home in order that some result might be rapidly obtained. It had been said that there ought to be some sort of medical inspection. If medical inspection were made on broad lines without too many details, on behalf of the Board of Education, it would be at once the best means of getting at a knowledge of the physical condition of the children. The first effect of such a medical inspection would be an outcry against the underfed condition of the children in the schools, and some scheme for feeding them with or without the aid of private benevolence could be effected through medical inspection without any legislation. That could be done by the Education Department inserting in their next Code the conditions and the instructions for medical inspection, and by that means we should get a basis of comparison for the children of succeeding generations, and a set of statistics which would be of the greatest importance from a sociological as well as a scientific point of view.
  The more practical result, that of feeding the children, could only be effected by greater co-operation of the Departments chiefly concerned. These water-tight compartments maintained between the Board of Education and the Local Government Board should cease to exist; there was too little communication and too much separation between the various offices of State. What was required on questions of this kind was frequent and constant communication between all Departments associated with them in any way. It was only by the co-operation of the Local Government Board with the Education Department that this question could be solved in the immediate future. It could be solved pretty easily if the

  1263
  Local Government Board would make an effort to encourage the local boards of guardians to step a little beyond the narrow limits to which they tad been accustomed and to take a broader view. The infant mortality was a terrible blot, which was pointed out by the Deterioration Committee. That was largely the result of insufficient medical relief at a time when the children wanted that relief. Medical relief did not pauperise the person who accepted it; why should this relief not be accepted in the same way? If we could give medical relief, why could we not feed the children who were attending the schools? That could be done through the recommendation of the teacher who, if he were backed by the medical officers, would always be able to make representations to the Poor Law guardians as to the cases where it was necessary. Parental responsibility was invoked in all these cases as a kind of deterrent. There need be no destruction of parental responsibility. In large numbers of cases relief was given on the conditions of loan; why should not this relief be given in the same way, the cost being recovered from the parents where they were capable of paying? If the parents were unable to pay, of course the Poor Law guardians would forego repayment, but in such a manner as that the feeding of the children could be effected without the loss of any parental responsibility.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that the debate had been interesting and had brought forth several suggestions, some of which were rather speculative than likely to bear practical fruit. It was not fair to say that the Board of Education had wholly neglected the recommendations of the Deterioration Committee. In the direction of several of the suggestions made the Board were moving as rapidly as possible. But on the feeding question the Government did not propose to introduce legislation. Hon. Members did not quite realise that the problem of underfed children was not to be solved altogether by the mere supply of meals to the children in attendance at the schools. He had visited a great many of the London schools, and the Johanna Street school was the only one in which he had found a child who had not had any breakfast;
  1264
  but even there it appeared to him the ordinary work of an elementary school could be so arranged as to meet the stunted capacity of such children. He had come to the conclusion that a mere addition of meals to the children would not remedy the state to which many of them had been reduced. He did not think that they could solve the problem of some of those slum schools by the mere provision of meals. In order to meet some of the cases in the poor areas they would need to establish special schools on the lines of the day industrial schools suggested by the hon. Member for Woolwich. He did riot think so poorly of those schools. The boys there were mostly truants or boys who had committed small offences. But he had found the boys bright and intelligent, though somewhat restless; but they were being developed physically and mentally in a satisfactory way.
  MR. CROOKS: They are being fed at the expense of the rates.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The boys were being fed largely but not wholly at the expense of the rates, and they were occupied only half-time at book work and the rest of the day at manual work. The boys lived at home, had three meals a day, and their condition was thoroughly satisfactory.
  DR. MACNAMARA: That is our case.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: How were they to establish these schools in poor areas? The children were largely fed at the expense of the rates; the meals were only paid to the extent of a half by the parents, and the course of manual instruction which the children received was naturally more expensive than the ordinary instruction or the public elementary schools. The consequence was that these schools were exceedingly costly to the area in which the parents lived. It appeared to him, therefore that the proposal to establish such schools, to leave it open to the local authorities to do so, or to require that such schools should be established, was undesirable until some inquiry had been made as to whether the Board of Education could not, by recommending a course

  1265
  of instruction suitable for those areas, and the local authorities by focussing charitable effort on certain schools, meet the difficulty. Outside that subject there was the more general question of the child when it came to school insufficiently fed because the parent was sick, or out of work, or because he neglected the child. How were they to deal with this aspect of the problem? They might deal with it under the operation of the Poor Law. He understood that the right hon. Member for Cambridge University made a suggestion that the Poor Law authority, in areas where distress was known to prevail, should provide the meals on proper evidence, and that the parents should then be charged That seemed to him to be a suggestion well worthy to be taken into consideration, and he would undertake to confer with the President of the Local Government Board to see whether it was possible to organise some such method of securing that children were not left destitute and neglected by their parents in the poorer districts of the large towns. But apart from that, and apart from the law which dealt with the neglect of children or cruelty to children, one form of which was neglect, how were they to meet this question of underfeeding? It could only be met by grants from the Exchequer, by raising money from the rates, or by voluntary effort.
  DR. HUTCHINSON: Or by all three.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Or possibly by all three. He was not prepared to make any suggestion as to grants from the Exchequer; and as to the rates, he thought that there was great force in the observation that it was a hardship on the poor ratepayer to provide meals for a fellow-citizen one degree poorer than himself. When it was said that charity would be painful and offensive to the children or the parents, he could not see that there was any distinction if a meal was to be provided for them for nothing whether it was provided by neighbours or by voluntary organisations supported by persons who might not be living in the same rateable area as the parents. Whether or not the meal was supplied by voluntary effort or by rate aid, the person to whom it was supplied did lose something
  1266
  of that independence and self-reliance to which reference had been made. Apart, therefore, from the Poor Law and organisation of special schools, they must be driven to State or rate aid, or to voluntary effort, if they were to find meals for the children. It might be said that meals should be provided for all, that those who could pay must pay, and that those who could not pay need not pay for them. He was glad to hear that in the municipality of Paris, where it was possible to get meals for nothing, the parents were willing to pay so large a sum as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Camberwell, but he thought that they would find, as time went on, greater and greater difficulties in distinguishing between parents in absolute need and those who ought to pay, and free meals would follow. Was that really necessary?
  He agreed that there was a considerable number of children sent to school who needed food. But the Lambeth Board of Guardians, after inquiring into cases brought before them by the party which visited the Johanna Street school, came to the conclusion that the great bulk of the persons under review could provide meals for their children if they would. Some of the parents were already in receipt of outdoor relief; others said the breakfasts were provided and therefore they need not provide them; while some boys who came to school without breakfast did so because they had got up too late to eat it. The special cases inquired into were not cases of need, and the general notice issued by the guardians only produced one application. These facts showed that it was possible in some districts to exaggerate, not the need of the children, but the incapacity of the parents. Supposing meals were supplied, he thought that some parents would decidedly object to their children being fed by the ratepayers. He had seen a letter from a man who described himself as a Radical and a free-trader, strongly opposing State-aid for the maintenance of children, who stated that he had forbidden his children to take the meals provided by a certain organisation. But it was possible to go a step further than free meals. In some board schools teachers said that the great difficulty was the clothes and the boots

  1267
  and another stage in this problem might be reached when they would be told that money was being wasted on education and food unless they went a step further and provided clothes. He fully admitted the disability under which he laboured, as representative of a University, who was supposed to take only an academic view of life, but what he had stated as to the injury that would be done to the poor by the breaking up of home life and family meals came from people who had lived among the poor for many years, and who told him that the common meal and the duty of preparing it were a valuable and humanising feature in the life of the poor.
  The Interim Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee contained a remarkable variety of suggestions. One Gentleman, who spoke with much experience of Manchester, said that free meals necessarily followed free education; an eminent medical man said that children must be fed, but parents must not be pauperised. The secretary of the Charity Organisation Society said—
  "Bring the Poor Law into operation wherever you can; only give free meals after strict investigation and not in school.
  It seemed to him, from inquiries he had made, that the people who knew something of the homes of the children and the lives of the poor took a different and somewhat sterner view of the feeding of children from those who attended a school and saw the children assembled there in all their hunger and poverty. It was impossible to go into one of these schools without a strong desire to do something immediately to feed, clothe, and improve the condition of the children, but one knew that to take large legislative action would be to take a step that could not possibly be recalled, and which might injure the life of this country for generations to come. So he asked that in a question of such great and vital importance time should be given—not without using voluntary efforts in the direction he had mentioned—and that they should not be called upon to take any rash and large steps in this matter.
  The Board of Education might do something—it could not do much—by administration. Local authorities might do something in the way of organisation,
  1268
  but voluntary effort, not merely by the grant of money, but by the endeavour to recreate the life of the poor in our large towns, might do much more. There were several voluntary societies doing excellent work in this way. There was the great National Health Society, which was just being started and which was designed to do a great deal by voluntary organisation to improve the health of the people over the length and breadth of the land. Then there was the Ladies Public Health Society at Manchester, whose members had gone about amongst the poor endeavouring to teach them how to improve their homes and live the life which all desired to see led by the working classes. There were other smaller societies which he could name, which by associating managers and teachers and other voluntary workers, accomplished good work by going into the homes of the poor children and endeavouring to instil into the parents a proper sense of parental duty, and ascertaining those cases which should be assisted and those which should not. But he felt very strongly that although they should lose no chance by administration of aiding local authorities and voluntary societies to provide proper sustenance for the children whom they were endeavouring at so great a cost to educate, they must to some extent trust to the self-sacrifice and the human sympathy of those who devoted their lives to work among the poor. But he for one would never be willing to take a step which would only be driving the evil deeper, which would injure the social life and the whole sentiment and feeling of the poor, and which might set back for an indefinite number of years the regeneration of the life of the poor in the poorest districts of our large towns. He regretted that he could not offer more; but he would undertake that, as far as administration went, he would see what could be done to instruct local authorities to organise voluntary efforts in the direction which the House on both sides desired.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWexpressed a deep sense of disappointment at the speech of the representative of the Board of Education, seeing there

  1269
  had been no attempt at an official denial of the appalling revelations of the Blue-book. None of the great facts upon which this Motion rested had in any respect been impugned or contraverted in any official quarter. As to what was to be done with the underfed children not one spark of light or one word of encouragement had come from the Board of Education. It was almost incredible that the official reply did not contain one word about the most important subject of a systematic course of medical inspection of the schools of the country. He could not understand why Royal Commissions and Select Committees were appointed if the results of their inquiries wore to be absolutely ignored by the Department of State concerned.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON (interrupting)regretted that he had omitted to state that every local education authority had power to appoint medical inspectors to every school, and a Committee was now inquiring into what was actually being done by local authorities and with what results.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he was pleased to have elicited that declaration. He thought that if a Minute, emphatically worded, were circulated among all education authorities calling attention to this power it would do immense good. If that were done the beginning of the end would come. Once the doctors were admitted into the schools we should get statistics in the way of measurements of height and weight, and in particular we would get the dimensions of brain and other statistics, which would form the foundation for all legitimate and proper action on the part of the local authorities. He again urged the Board of Education to issue the circular, because a great deal depended on a good schedule filled in from time to time with particulars which would afford material for comparative statistics on which we could build up a case as to underfed children.
  On the general question of underfeeding the House might well consider the gravity of the position. He had studied the Blue-books, and he ventured to say he was within the mark in declaring
  1270
  that in the working classes of this country there were underfed children in the proportion of from 16 to 20 per cent. of the entire attendance in the schools. That was a most appalling state of matters, and yet the official responsible for the system which injured the manhood of the next generation in this way had not one word to say to help the House on this fundamental social problem, except to hope for greater effort in the direction of private charity. The hon. Baronet was haunted by the fear of undermining self-reliance and parental responsibility. No one who had taken part in the debate had asked that anything should be done to undermine that responsibility. What they did maintain was that parental responsibility would not cure the question which they had to solve, namely, What are we to do with those children we have introduced into the schools? They would not be fed, because we had a pious opinion as to the duty of their parents. They had not in the past been fed, the State relying on individual or organised charity. They would only be fed when the State came to realise that, having taken the children off the street and compelled them to listen to instruction, the State had a responsibility to feed the children who were so treated. All animals, human or otherwise, which had empty stomachs began to forage for the means to fill them, and the only animal that was prevented from doing that in this country was the little human animal that was taken into school and confined under our compulsory system of education to a room for a certain number of hours with a starving stomach. The child was prevented from going out and foraging for himself by begging or working in order to relieve the craving of nature. He maintained that the State which confined children for a certain number of hours daily was responsible to see that they were fed.
  He had a simple suggestion to make to the Board of Education which was not open to the objection of undermining parental responsibility or self-reliance. His proposal was threefold. In the first place, that they must give administrative effect to all the recommendations that had been made with

  1271
  regard to regular medical inspection. Then they ought to give administrative effect to the recommendations with regard to the provision of buildings and apparatus for the cooking of meals for the children. Having done that, the children should be fed, and, whether the meals were supplied from outside or not, a record should be kept of all the children who were fed, and there ought to be in each school board, or managing committee, a sub-committee which might be called the nutrition or feeding committee.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I do not see how the local authorities can be empowered to provide apparatus for cooking meals for children unless the power is conferred upon them by legislation.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether it is not a fact that school boards exercise that power now? Have they been surcharged for doing so?
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONdissented.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he thought the hon. Baronet was wrong. In his opinion, if that power was exercised prudently it would be within the regulations and would not be made a matter of objection by the auditors. The last step he proposed completely covered all this doctrine about self-reliance and parental responsibility. He would give the school authority which had investigated the condition of all the children, knew the families, and had visiting committees, the power to issue a precept for the supply of meals for one, two or three months, and the effect of that precept would be equal to a warrant at law for the recovery of the money cost of the meals, in the same way as a warrant issued for the recovery of taxes. The drunken parent would be caught by that means at once. He did not say whether that was or was not on the thin line between administration and legislation, but what was wanted was to get at the root of this national misery and mischief. All the honest and capable parents who wished to pay would pay immediately, and the whole of the doctrine about self-reliance and parental
  1272
  control would fall to the ground. He entirely objected to the Poor Law being brought in as an engine for extracting this money. What they ought to have was a view of the whole situation, the Education Department guiding the school boards or school committees who had a knowledge of the home life of the children; and only in those cases where there was drunkenness along with capacity would the precept he issued and the money recovered.
  Further, he altogether objected to the scheme suggested by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. His scheme was to gather all those cases of underfed children and form them into separate communities, with separate schools, in order that, with the assistance of the Poor Law or otherwise, the segregated children might be provided with meals. It would be a most unfortunate thing to contemplate that simply because children were underfed they should be tainted with the idea of pauperism, housed separately from other better-clothed and better-fed children, the very mixture with whom should be the first branch of the education of these little people. Might he say that he did think that they had got further upon this question than that a Minister of the Crown should actually say that if we began to give free meals we would be troubled with our old friend the open door; that it would mean free clothing, and that we should be on the down grade. Free meals were only one of the social remedies for a great social grievance. He knew that clothing was a great want in many humble homos, but because of that we should not be deterred from addressing ourselves now to what was proved to be a very clamant and different case.
  He did not hesitate to say that he had felt very much inclined to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that the House should not divide on this question; but having heard the speech just delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, his duty took a very different shape. It seemed to him that the House of Commons was bound to protest against

  1273
  such doctrines. With the Board of Education, it was not merely non possumus, but non volumes—they would not try to do it. They did not propose to look out for power to do anything but issue these schedules. In the meantime these poor mites were going underfed to school. That the case was clamant was proved by repeated inquiries under the authority of Royal Commissions and of Committees of the House. What more was required? The testimony was before them and the case must be dealt with. Misery was going on; the school was planting the seeds of education on soil in many cases absolutely unfitted to receive it. This session would not pass over in regard to Scotland until this subject was very fully thrashed out. There was a Bill before the House, and the Scotch Members would see that clauses were put forward to deal with cases of the most clamant character. They hoped to get the support of the Government of the day in giving effect to these enlarging clauses; and that the people North of the Tweed would be dealt with in such a manner as to enable them to show that their view of Imperialism was very different from that taken in this more backward
  region of the Empire. They did not believe that Imperialism was to be found in rickety constitutions in their children; and they hoped that some substantial progress would be made with this great and important question.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that he could not vote for the Motion before the House, for if carried it would upset the whole financial arrangements of the country, because it would mean the rejection of the Appropriation Bill. He admitted that on the question of applying a remedy for meeting the case of underfed children there was a very strong feeling. Of course the crux of the whole question was parental responsibility. His hon. friend the Member for Hoxton and himself had drafted a Bill in which they lad made an honest attempt to deal with the question, and he hoped that they should have the support of hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 88.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leed)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose.

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christeh.

  Colston, Chas Edw. H. Athole

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cust, Henry John C.

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

  Bigwood, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Bill, Charles

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Bingham, Lord

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bond, Edward

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bull, William James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Butcher, John George

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Gretton, John

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.(Midd'x

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edin burgh W)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfreisshire

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Moore, William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tumour, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

  Percy, Earl

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Welby, Sir Charle G. E. (Notts)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W (Mile End)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Raseh, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Younger, William

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Viscount Valentia.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Crombie, John William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Crooks, William

  Grant, Corrie

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hammond, John

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Benn, John Williams

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harwood, George

  Boland, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Brigg, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Burns, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Burt, Thomas

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Caldwell, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Cameron, Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Jones William (Carnarvonsh)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Gilhooly, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Labouchere, Henry

  1276

  1277

  Langley, Batty

  O' Dowd, John

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O' Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O' Mara, James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radeliffe)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Levy, Maurice

  Perks, Robert William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell

  Toulmin, George

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Ure, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mooney, John J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roche, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Moss, Samuel

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Murphy, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Nolan, Joseph (Lonth, South)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Norman, Henry

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Young, Samuel

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Sheehy, David

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Mr. Keir Hardie and Dr.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Macnamara.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question (March 27th), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  *SIR THOMAS ESMONDSsaid he desired to direct the attention of the Government to the question of the encouragement of Irish fisheries. He and his colleagues had repeatedly urged the claim of the Irish fisheries and Irish fishermen to Government assistance, but so far without any practical result. The late Chief Secretary promised, two or three sessions ago, to institute an inquiry into the subject. He thought they were entitled to ask what had become of that inquiry, and, if it had been held, that the result of the investigation should be made public. In July last, again, they had what he regarded as a distinct Parliamentary pledge from the Secretary to the Treasury that, if the Chief Secretary came
  1278
  forward with a definite scheme, he would give it all the assistance in his power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a very large surplus and might very well spare a few thousands of pounds toward carrying out the pledge given by the Secretary to the Treasury.
  The development and encouragement of the Irish fisheries was a matter in which the people of Ireland took a very great interest. It affected practically the whole of the country, North, South, East, and West, and so far as that part of the country with which he was acquainted was concerned, the counties of Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, and Waterford, every single public body had unanimously invited the Government to deal with this question, and to relieve the, fishermen from the great distress under which the fishing industry at the present time was labouring. The fishermen themselves all along the coast had held meetings and had called upon their representatives in the House to speak for them, and had brought every pressure they could to bear upon the Government to remedy the present unsatisfactory conditions. So far as the Irish Party was concerned they were determined to assist these men, to the best of their power. They warned the Government that this was a matter they would have to take up very shortly, if they did not take it up now; that it was

  1279
  a question of extreme urgency and the Irish Members would not let it drop. The fishing population of Ireland had diminished to an extraordinary degree of recent years. In many places with which he was acquainted there were only half the boats that were there in other times; the fishing population were emigrating year by year. Ireland was losing the best of her people, and it seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that while the British Government encouraged the riff-raff of Europe to settle in this country they would not take any step whatever to prevent the emigration that was going on at the present time of the ancient race of the country.
  He did not at this moment ask for specific legislation, as that would be out of order, but that the administrative facilities that the Government already possessed should be put into operation. It was neither a difficult nor a very large question to deal with, nor was it insoluble if common sense was brought to bear upon it. There were many places along the coast where a very little judicious expenditure would stop emigration by providing employment for the community, which would return to its old industry and earn its living. They had all heard that under a Unionist Government a new era was dawning for Ireland, and that all sorts of industries were to be established and encouraged by a benevolent Government. To his mind it was far better and much cheaper to preserve those industries which existed than to establish others. The emigration from Ireland could only be stopped by providing employment for the people. The encouragement of the fishing industry, with the consequent revival of the kindred industries, boat building, fishing-gear manufacturing, sail making, and the like would go far to prevent emigration and keep the people in the country.
  He had been a great admirer of the work which had been done by the Congested Districts Board, but he thought in this connection that Board had missed a great opportunity. The Congested Districts Board had been in the habit of encouraging, in certain districts of the West, the fishing industry, and had been in the habit of giving
  1280
  boats and fishing gear to the people of those districts where it was in their opinion desirable that this industry should be encouraged, but those boats and that gear had been generally brought from either Scotland or the Isle of Man. Had they procured those boats and that gear in Ireland it would have gone at any rate some way to establish those trades allied to the fishing industry, and that in itself would have been good policy, as they would have done something for local industries which were now languishing. For years he had commended this suggestion to the Chief Secretary, and he now hoped that in future any boats and gear required would be procured in Ireland. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to go down to Arklow and see a boat which had been recently launched there (a boat built by Arklow shipwrights with Arklow workmen) if he did, he thought he would find that that boat was equally well built and just as cheap as any boat built either in Scotland or the Isle of Man. It was not the habit of Chief Secretaries for Ireland to go among the people, but he thought it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman broke through that tradition and learnt from the people themselves their wants and their wishes, and how they might be best served. The right hon. Member would find many places along the coast where for a very small expenditure he could greatly improve the fishing industry. He would also see some relics of the monumental incapacity of Dublin Castle in the past; for instance, he would see at Arklow, the largest fishing centre in Ireland, with a population of 1,000 fishermen, all expert mariners, a pier so constructed that the fishing fleet was not able very often to get out of the harbour or, being out, was unable to get in. That wonderful pier had been constructed with the money of the ratepayers of Wicklow and Wexford by the Irish Board of Works, and was so constructed that at certain tides and during the prevalence of certain winds it was impossible to get outside the harbour or, if outside, it was impossible to get in again. The whole of, last autumn's fishing was lost owing to the construction of this harbour, and the people of Wicklow and Wexford were now repaying a loan which had been thrust upon them, and from which they

  1281
  had received no benefit. Not only had they built Arklow Harbour, but many others beside. They had taxed themselves to their utmost capacity, and they could not tax themselves further. He submitted that it was the duty of the so-called Government of the country to protect the industries of the country, and fishing being the largest industry after that of agriculture, it was the duty of the Government to come forward and put straight the mal-administration of the past. It was not fair to ask the local ratepayers to spend more money in the development of the fishing industry having regard to the enormous sums that they had spent in the past, and to the fact that they were not in a position to give more money. Arklow Harbour was a scandal, such as in any other country on the face of the earth would be impossible. They expected the Government to come forward, and take this matter up seriously. The question was a perfectly easy one to deal with. The Government had a remedy in their own hands. All they had to do was to extend the operation of the Marine Works Act to those parts of the Irish coast to which it did not now apply, and if they showed by such action that they were desirous of remedying this evil they would receive the assistance of every section of the community in Ireland.
  MR. POWERsaid he was glad his hon. friend had brought this matter to the attention of the House. It was a matter with which he was honourably identified and no Irishman could have done a better thing for Ireland. This state of things was a commentary upon the government of Ireland. It had always been as sorted, but they denied the assertion, that this Government was only too anxious and willing to do everything it could for Ireland. But, even if the Government were willing, the congestion of business in the House was such that it was impossible for them to bring forward any policy to deal with this matter, having regard to their many other duties. His hon. friend the Member for North Wexford had alluded to the decay of the Irish fisheries. That decay had been lamentable, but he doubted whether it was one whit worse than the decay which
  1282
  had taken place in other Irish industries Industrial decay was marked wherever they went in Ireland, and the state of things was simply appalling. The fishing industry had suffered enormously, and so far from apologising for bringing forward this case he thought this country owed restitution to Ireland for the way they had put down Irish industries in the past. The Irish fisheries were no exception to this rule. The decay of Irish fisheries, as Mr. Lecky pointed out in his "History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," was to be ascribed, in the first-instance, to jealous English legislation. Even Froude, in no measured language, detailed the steps taken to put down the fishing industry in Ireland. Not long ago, in a speech to his constituents at Dover, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland quoted an eloquent passage from the writings of Lord Dufferin in which he wrote of the jealous legislation which had crushed and killed the industries of Ireland. That was the condition of Ireland to-day, and what steps were being taken to improve it? At the present time they heard a good deal about protection, but Ireland did not need protection against the so-called foreigner, but protection from her nearer neighbours, whose jealousy of Ireland's trade had destroyed every Irish industry that promised at one time to be successful.
  How were they being treated at the present time? The Board over which Sir Horace Plunkett presided had acted with great liberality towards his constituency. The local authorities in his division had, however, been obliged to borrow money at a high rate of interest, and the time allowed for repayment was only twelve years. The local authorities had found large sums of money, although the local rates stood at 8s. 6d. in the £. It was true that the Agricultural Board had supplemented the efforts of the local authorities, but had it not been for the generosity of the county council nothing would have been got from the Government Department. With regard to the fisheries he thought Ireland had been treated in the most scurvy way by the Admiralty. They passed a Bill prohibiting trawling in Scotland within certain areas, the only result of which was that Ireland suffered in consequence, because those trawlers had now turned

  1283
  their attention to Irish waters instead of Scotch waters. The Admiralty had refused to grant them a gunboat for the protection of Irish fisheries, although he was informed that the Scotch Fisher Board had two or three gunboats placed at their disposal. He was aware that the waters along the Irish coast were patrolled by vessels belonging to the Department and paid for by them, but Ire land got no direct assistance from the Admiralty, whereas their friends in the North of Scotland were not placed ii that unfortunate position. He thought that was a practical question, and the Chief Secretary might interest himself in that matter. If some gunboats were placed at the disposal of the Department some of the money now spent upon their own boats might be spent in a better way.
  The condition of Arklow had been alluded to, and the state of things existing there was an absolute disgrace to this country, and could not obtain in any other country in the world where they had representative institutions and representative government. The practice appeared to be in the House that when Irish Nationalists pronounced in favour of any Motion or measure that was taken as a signal by hon. Members opposite to march into the division lobby against them. Ireland gained nothing by the Navy Votes, and when they asked for any assistance from the Admiralty they turned a deaf ear to their appeals. This was only one of the many ways in which the material interests of Ireland were neglected. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford that it was better to keep alive the industries they now possessed than start new ones. The fishing industry was one of their oldest industries, and it ought to be fully developed. Failing industries kept a country back and prevented people embarking in fresh enterprises. The fishing industry was one in which they had the material at hand. Accordingly it was incumbent upon Parliament to endeavour to undo, as far as possible, the effects of these evil enactments by providing harbours and encouraging boatbuilding and sail-making in the fishing districts. No greater condemnation of English rule could be found than the dwindling of the population of Ireland,
  1284
  which, after all, was the standard by which every country judged its prosperity.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid, as he understood what had been said in the debate by hon. Members opposite, the arguments divided themselves into two heads. In the first place it was held that it was a striking commentary on the administration of Ireland under the Act of Union that the harbours in the South-East of Ireland had been so much neglected by the Government; and secondly, that those harbours had a prior right to be dealt with before any others.
  *SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I said this was a question which affected the North as well as the South. I said nothing about prior right.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREaccepted the hon. Baronet's explanation, but he had had the advantage during the recess of reading his speeches and letters in support of a movement on behalf of the southeastern ports of Ireland which the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford undertook to press forward in the House. He remembered particularly well the advice the hon. Baronet gave in a published letter in which he said that until the fishermen of the South of Ireland took to breaking panes of glass they would never get listened to at Westminster. He understood that the hon. Baronet pledged himself to press that forward with vigour. From the references the hon. Baronet made to ports only situated in the south-east corner of Ireland he assumed he had boon acting up to his pledges. They had heard a great deal about the treatment which the South-East of Ireland had received from the Government. They were told it was a striking commentary on the Act of Union. The hon. Baronet said that they had pressed on the Government, so far without success, the claims of these harbours and ports. It was not fair; of the House that statements should be made which would convey to it that, under the Act of Union, nothing had been lone for that coast. Why, there was £250,000 voted for Irish piers and harbours under the Fisheries Act in

  1285
  1883, and a Return was published on June 25th, 1898, which showed how that money was spent. In the county of Waterford there was a total of £15,500, in Wexford under that Act £7,785, in Wicklow £20,000, and under another Act in Arklow £40.000. And this wretched little corner of Ireland which was causing all this agitation got about £150,000 under one Act or another inside the last thirty years. Yet the Nationalist Members complained that that was the treatment Ireland received under the Act of Union. He thought it was most creditable treatment. And it was not a straight or right thing that Members from that part of the country should complain that so far they had met with no success and that nothing had been done for them.
  AN HON. MEMBER:Were those grants or loans?
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid that most of them were grants, but even if they were loans those particular districts got the advantage of Imperial credit. He wished to tell the House what had been done in those parts of Ireland where they had not been encouraged to break panes of glass in order to call attention to their grievances and where they obeyed the law of the land. There was a district around Belfast comprising a coast line of about 150 miles. The sum of £82,000 had been spent under the last Act, and what had this district got? Portrush, out of £250,000, got £1,340 spent by the Board of Works in 1888. In the following year a tempest arose and the concrete blocks put there by the Board of Works were swept away into the Channel. From that day to this the harbour had been rendered worse than it was before. The difficulties of the harbour had been doubled by the debris placed there by the Board of Works. The Government Department must have found that there was a necessity for this work or they would not have spent £1,300. The constituency represented by the hon. Member for North Wexford in the last ten years had got the surplus of this £250,000.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It is wasted in the same way.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREreplied that it might be wasted, but they were getting the money. Ulster could not get that. And in the case he had mentioned he approached the Board of Agriculture time after time, and although the Government had admitted the necessity for these particular works, nothing had been done—simply because they did not go on the lines of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford and advise their constituents to break panes of glass. This was another illustration of the beautiful doctrine lately known as conciliation. He believed it was still known as conciliation, but he had reason to understand that it was not quite so much in force. Last summer, early in the spring, [Laughter]—early in the spring of last year he brought before the Chief Secretary the complaint that the harbour at Portrush was being filled up with sand. It was a very important thing for Portrush, as all that part of the country depended very largely on the tourist traffic. Special tourist boats ran every day to Ardrossan, and they ran weekly to other ports in Scotland, and it meant a very great deal to the farmers, and to the car drivers and hotel keepers. In order to meet the exigencies of the tourist traffic he asked the Chief Secretary whether, to enable those boats to come into the harbour, he could grant them the use of the Government dredger, because the Board of Works had two dredgers. In those days conciliation was in full swing, and the answer he got from the Chief Secretary was that the only Government dredgers were both in Nationalist harbours. Later on there was a development in the other direction which almost proved the case. Besides, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wexford's glass-pane cracking brigade kept up an agitation in November and December last, and there was a meeting held in Dublin of the people interested in the south-eastern harbours who already had £100,000 in their pockets, and were asking for more. At the meeting they had a letter from the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, Mr. T. P. Gill, a gentleman who formerly sat on the Nationalist benches, and who certainly had not lost his sympathy with the objects of the Nationalist Members.

  1287
  There was a gentleman who wrote and complained that Arklow was filled up with sand——exactly what he told the Chief Secretary about the harbour of Portrush. Well, Mr. Gill, on the very first complaint being made, at once made arrangements to have Arklow dredged. Arklow had had £40,000 already. They got the money.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Board of Works misspent it.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREreplied that they got the benefit of the credit of the money. He could quite understand why they wanted to keep Sir Antony Mac-Donnell at Dublin Castle. When they had Mr. Gill in charge of the Department of Agriculture they could understand why Arklow got the dredger, while Port-rush was left to shift for itself. Arklow got the dredger because it was the one town in Ireland in which no Protestant was allowed to preach in the streets. For any man in Arklow to call himself either Unionist or Protestant simply meant that he would be driven out of the town. That was the position of affairs. All he could say was that he and his colleagues intended that there should be fair play in Ireland in these matters, and that not even the influence of Sir Antony MacDonnell or of Mr. Gill should ensure that a district which had already had £100,000 should take priority over that part of the country where all it had had from the Government, most of which had been honestly repaid, could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
  MR. COGANsaid that both with regard to street preaching and the question of grants the statements or the hon. Member for North Antrim were inaccurate. Arklow was the only town in the southern province of Ireland where street preaching was permitted every Sunday all the year round. But the question of street preaching was of small importance as compared with the preservation of the people and the protection of their means of livelihood; therefore he would deal with the question of grants. The hon. Member stated that £100,000 had been given to the south-eastern coast. As a matter of fact, £140,000 had been wasted on harbours
  1288
  in the county of Wicklow alone. At Arklow £35,000 was spent upon a harbour, £23,000 of the money being a loan but the harbour was found to be so absolutely useless that the Wicklow Grand Jury at the Spring Assizes in 1885, almost directly after the completion of the harbour, passed a resolution pointing out that the harbour had been constructed against the express wishes; and views of the people most concerned, and asking for an early inspection in order that the cess-payers might be relieved of a useless expenditure. An inspection was made, and, it being found that the harbour was crumbling away, a further expenditure of £7,000 was sanctioned. After a period of thirteen years the harbour became filled up with sand, and for five years the harbour commissioners endeavoured to dredge the harbour, but they were unable to keep it clear of sand. In 1903 the harbour became permanently filled up, and the fishing fleet were unable to get out, or, if they got out, they were unable to get in again. The harbour commissioners were constantly pressing the Government to do something, and in the early spring of last year a dredger was sent down, but it was unable to clear the sand. Thus a population of 3,000, who were dependent upon fishing, had been rendered helpless, and the local industries had been ractically extinguished through their inability to ship their produce from the harbour. The people of Wicklow then approached the Department of Agriculture, but it was not until long after public bodies and county councils had taken action that the Department promised to do something. The agitation was not set on foot by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford; it had been going on for years. At a meeting attended by delegates from the county councils of Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, and Waterford, there was passed a strong resolution calling upon the Government to take action in the matter; that resolution was confirmed by the county councils themselves and by every harbour commission and rural council in the four counties. At the end of 1903 the Board of Works sent their chief engineer to survey the harbour, and the detailed report submitted by that

  1289
  officer fully confirmed the original contention of the people of Wicklow with regard to the position and manner in which the harbour had been constructed. He hoped the Chief Secretary would study that report with a view to the adoption of the recommendations of the chief engineer.
  The representatives of the south-eastern counties were anxious that the Marine Works Act should be extended to all the maritime counties of Ireland. They had no selfish views in the matter, their desire being that the Government should do its duty to all counties. The fishing industry, which was of supreme importance to the people of Ireland, had been totally neglected in the past, as would be made abundantly clear by a comparison between the treatment given to English and Scotch fisheries and that meted out to Ireland. The Department of Agriculture were anxious to do all they could, but their means were very limited. Here was a case in which public money had been expended in such a way that the expenditure would be absolutely worthless unless some further works were carried out, and he submitted that there was no commercial concern in the country that would hesitate to undertake a small additional expenditure to make previous large expenditure remunerative. It was one of the first duties of the Government to look after the people, and they ought now to come to the rescue. The Board of Works was a monument of bad works; everything they had done in the matter of harbours and piers had been a failure. On the harbour at Wicklow £67,000 was spent; the whole of the money was a loan, and had had to be repaid with ¼ per cent. interest, with the result that Wicklow and the guaranteeing baronies had been charged with £3,300 a year. That harbour and the town itself were now threatened with complete destruction. Then, again, at Greystones some £20,000 had been absolutely thrown into the sea. When the harbour was supposed to have been completed it was examined by the county surveyor, but it was in so ruinous a condition that he refused to certify for it, and the Grand Jury declined to take it over. On these three
  1290
  harbours £140,000 had been wasted, and he asked the Government, in the name of common sense, to take steps to put the harbours in a proper condition, so that that large expenditure should not be altogether thrown away. Such a state of things would not be tolerated in a Scotch or English harbour for a single week, but because the Irish were a patient people this kind of thing went on year after year without anything being done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter in hand, and have steps taken to improve the condition of affairs of which they complained.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the people of the North of Ireland felt that they had been neglected under recent sinister influences while the South and West of Ireland had been unduly favoured, but his intervention was to point out that even where money had been spent on a northern constituency it had not been very wisely applied. The pier at Portavogie had been greatly damaged, if not absolutely swept away by a recent gale. The point he wished to emphasise was that that pier was constructed against all local opinion and local knowledge, and on a plan against which the county council of Down, other local influences, and he in Parliament, had over and over again protested. He wished to make an appeal on behalf of Bangor, because no fishing boats could go there at low tide. The county council had given its approval in regard to some improvements there, and he trusted that the new Chief Secretary would do something to help on these local claims which, although they might appear small matters to bring before the House of Commons, were yet of vita importance to the localities concerned He hoped that in the future Ireland would receive fair treatment all round in these matters.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid his object in rising was to call attention to certain matters which he had brought before the notice of the Chief Secretary last year. The hon. Member or North Antrim had informed the Nationalist Party that they were a window-breaking brigade.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Heat, hear !
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN,continuing, said the hon. Member had also said that they were insolent and had many other sins. Those were somewhat hard epithets to use against them, but when they remembered who it was that used them they were inclined to let them pass unnoticed. The charge which Nationalist Members made was that their constituencies were being neglected in regard to public works, and upon this point the hon. Member for North Down said that they were right.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I did not intend to do so.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the hon. Member for North Down said that the grants given to certain harbours were wasted, and that was precisely the charge which Nationalist Members made.
  MR T. L. CORBETTsaid he entirely agreed with every word which the hon. Member for North Antrim had said. What he said was that some of the money which had been spent by the Government on the harbours in the North of Ireland had not been wisely spent.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid the hon. Member for North Antrim had been giving them a lesson on loyalty. There was one man to whom the hon. Member ought to have been loyal, and where was he now? If there ever was a man to whom the hon. Member opposite ought to have been loyal it was the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. This was the Gentleman who was preaching loyalty to the Irish Members. The Unionists of Ireland were only loyal when they got everything. His constituency of Galway had not had one penny from the Government in the way of assistance of any kind for the last three years.
  MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid the hon. Member was evidently in error about his own constituency. If he would look at
  1292
  the Return from which he had quoted he would see that since the year 1883 Galway had received from the Government £30,000.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid he was speaking of the poor country around the city of Galway, a constituency which he knew well. Not one penny had been spent by the Government in his constituency for the last three years, although they had had the honour of a visit from a Government inspector. The lighting of the harbour was complained of, and the harbour board undertook to correct it, but immediately an order was given by the Local Government Board telling them that they must not change the lighting of the harbour. Afterwards the Local Government Board sent an inspector to visit the harbour, and he came upon a glorious day when things were calm. He came in the morning and went away in the afternoon, after examining the lights when they were not lit. That was all they did for his constituency in three years. They had been told that they must rely upon their own resources. Here was a poor section of the country right around the city, where the Land Act had done nothing for the people, and where it had not been put into operation. A woollen factory was started there by a few people, and it had turned out goods acknowledged to be the finest in the three kingdoms. The people themselves had also established a brush factory, but the very things which the Government could have done to assist the people there were just the things which had not been done. In the face of these facts he would not say that the remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim were insolent, and he would not say what they were. He thought he had made out his case that it was necessary that a dredger should be sent to the harbour of Galway as soon as possible. He had received Answers upon this question from the Attorney-General and from the late Chief Secretary, but he should continue to press this matter session after session in the hope that in the near future they would have someone sitting on the Treasury Bench representing the Government who would listen to their representations, and would not give them so many unfulfilled promises.
  MR. CLANCYsaid this was really too serious a subject to be treated in the way in which it had been treated by the hon. Member for North Antrim. He assured hon. Members opposite that the Pope had nothing to do with their actions upon these questions, for he knew nothing about dredgers either on the east or the west coast of Ireland, and he doubted if he even knew where North Antrim was on the map. Therefore he begged hon. Members opposite to be serious in this matter, when they were dealing with questions which materially affected the welfare of Ireland. For his own part he had no objection to anything being done for any part of Ireland which urgently required the attention of the Government. He rejoiced when he heard of anything being done to a harbour in Down or Antrim, just as much as he did when anything was being done to the harbours on the west coast of Ireland. He had no objection to any harbour being improved. The hon. Member for North Antrim had quoted certain figures, but he had been informed that the greater part of the sum he had mentioned was granted in the shape of loans, which, of course, had to be repaid. Their great grievance was that these moneys had been entirely wasted, and had been spent against the wishes of the localities concerned, and entirely without any local control. He put it to the Chief Secretary whether it was not an outrage for the poor people to have to pay back these loans out of the rates when the money had been misspent on works which were absolutely useless. The boast of Irish Unionists was that this Parliament could do everything for Ireland that an Irish Parliament could do.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Hear, hear !
  MR. CLANCYsaid that North, South, East, or West, there was not a part of the coast of Ireland which, if there had been an Irish Parliament for the last hundred years, would not have been the scene of a flourishing industry. Now they could not go to any of these small fishing places without seeing all around signs of decay. It was impossible for the people of Ireland to believe that this was not the result of neglect on the part of those who had assumed the responsibility for the government of Ireland against the will of the people. He did not want to dwell so much upon questions affecting his own constituency, although in Dublin they had many grievances of this kind. It was a great mistake to suppose that poverty existed only in the West of Ireland. He did not begrudge a single penny which had been devoted to the West of Ireland during the last twenty years, and he had voted for every penny which had been granted for that purpose. All that had been granted and a good deal more was wanted in order to put that part of the country into a satisfactory state. There were, however, all over Ireland, in what were called rich counties on the east coast, places which a native Legislature would assist by national grants which were now left to ruin and decay, because the present Government were more concerned with South Africa and afiairs in the Far East than with Ireland. The Chief Secretary had been invited to go round Wexford and see for himself, but he had not so much faith in this practice. Everything was known, and what was wanted was expenditure out of Imperial funds for the general purposes of the country. The demand for the expenditure of public money in Ireland was justified not only by the condition

  1295
  of the country, but also by the scandalous over-taxation of which Ireland had been the victim for the last hundred years. The present Chief Secretary had commenced by being conciliatory, but that policy seemed to have had a bad effect upon the hon. Member for North Antrim. He hoped the new Chief Secretary would have a little courage, and beware of the fate of his predecessor.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I do not think the House will be surprised if I say, after listening to the debate which has now gone on for two hours, that I rise to speak on behalf of the Irish Government in some little confusion of mind. In the first place, I have received a great deal of advice, and that advice has been of a somewhat conflicting character. At the same time, coming the study of as the I do fresh administration of Ireland from the point of view of a person who is for the first time responsible for that government it has been not a little surprising to me to find that there is so widespread an impression that nothing has been done for Ireland, and that no advantages have been conferred upon Ireland by the work that has been done. We have had to-night many local cases referred to. It is obviously impossible for me to go into all of them. I am going to be impartial in my examination of the cases presented, and take two cases presented from different sides of the House. The Arklow Harbour and the Bann drainage are two very good illustrations of the difficulties in which the Irish Government find themselves. An attack has been made upon the Irish Board of Works with regard to the Arklow Harbour. I can only judge the
  1296
  Irish Board of Works by the information at my disposal, which naturally is official information. With regard to the Arklow Harbour I find that a great deal of money has been spent upon it. It has been sought to draw a distinction between the money found by the State in the form of loans and the money found by grants. I find in the case of the harbour the expenses defrayed by loans amounting to £23,500 and by free grants coming to £18,500, so that after all there is not a very great margin between the amount advanced by loan and the amount given in free grants. It has been said that the Board of Works muddled what was done there. My information is that the plans for the works which are now in existence were favourably reported on by two independent engineers whose Report was presented to Parliament; and that during the time the plans were under inspection a great many people in the localities approved them, and that they were also approved by two eminent practical engineers. If, therefore, it is true that the Board of Works failed in doing its duty, it took every precaution it was possible to adopt, and it does not appear to me that the charge of failure rests upon them. It was almost impossible to avoid some of the difficulties, which were local difficulties and which in the circumstances seemed to be scarcely preventable. The Board of Works have still got the condition of Arklow Harbour under consideration. I am informed that before I took office the Irish Government were considering whether out of the Irish Development Grant a sum of money could not be employed for the extension of the pier and the groyne. But, after all, I have shown that a considerable amount of money has been spent on Arklow

  1297
  Harbour. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER "Wasted."] It is all very well to say that the money has been wasted, be every precaution was adopted that could be adopted.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It was spent on plans which were disapproved of at the time by all the local opinion most likely to know.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have already stated that the plans were approved by a number of people in the locality and that every precaution was taken that could possibly be adopted in order to secure that the work should be properly done. If it is suggested that there has been want of care or energy on the part of those concerned in carrying out that work I am here to defend them, for it is my business to do so. If hon. Gentlemen were in my place they would defend men who were unable to defend themselves. I have also to say that as long as I am responsible for the government of Ireland I shall do my best to make myself acquainted with the facts on the spot. I shall not take the advice of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last when he said that personal visits are not necessary. I shall endeavour to ascertain the facts in regard to the past, and what it is possible to do in the future to secure better results.
  The Bann drainage has not been referred to directly, but I think it was referred to indirectly in this way. Reference was made to many works which were under the consideration of the Irish Government and with regard to which there are difficulties. I am not responsible for that. Up to the present, of course, I have not had to take any
  1298
  active steps in connection with the matter. The difficulty in regard to the Bann drainage has, I find, been that a great deal of money has been spent under the direction of the Government and that the results are alleged to be not satisfactory. We are asked to spend more money on that and other works. Coming fresh to the study of Irish administration I find an attack made upon us that we have not spent enough money, and that the money already spent has not been properly spent. I think I shall be able to show that the money has been well spent, and that some excellent results have been obtained. Reference has been made to the policy of my Department and to permanent officials in the Department. I hope the House will believe that I did not accept the office I now hold with a light heart. I did not accept it without grave misgivings as to my own power to do justice to a position of such great importance and responsibility, and, therefore, what I say now I hope the House will believe is not due to any feeling of over self-confidence or presumption, but I do ask my hon. friends on my own side and hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the view of the situation as it presents itself to me, and must present itself to anybody who has experience of the administration of the country. That view is that whatever the policy of the Irish Government may be, whether it is one approved or disapproved, the blame, at all events in the future, if blame there is, should be placed on the shoulders of one person—the Minister who is for the time being responsible. However competent permanent officials may be, they cannot share the responsibility for administration which attaches to be Minister alone. So long as I hold

  1299
  my position I shall consider it a duty and privilege to defend those officials who cannot speak for themselves, and I am willing to bear the blame for any failure in administration.
  Let me say a word as to the facts in regard to the question raised in the Motion. The hon. Baronet who moved the Motion said that nothing had been done for the Irish fisheries, that the Government of Ireland had failed to find the necessary money, that there had been no development, and that the fisheries had been going backward. Is it really the case that they have been going backward? I say, as I have said before more than once, that I am bound to a very large extent to take, as a Minister always is compelled to take, a view which is of an official character, but it does not follow from that that it is unreliable or that a public official is inaccurate. If you take the figures of the Report of the Congested District Board for 1904 you will find the following particulars: In 1896, Aran spring mackerel half-boxes sold, fresh, were 6,350, and the total amount paid to fishermen, £1,627. In 1903 the half-boxes sold were 13,787; and the total amount paid, £3,813. The Cleggan fishery results in 1896 showed the half-boxes sold were 3,698; and the amount paid £753. In 1903 the figures were—half-boxes sold, 8,375; and the amount paid, £3,189. The Clifden fishery results in 1897 showed that the number of half-boxes sold, fresh, was 255, and the amount paid to fishermen £58. In 1903 the number of half-boxes sold, fresh, were 809; and the amount paid to fishermen £1,090. These figures show that there has been a steady increase in those branches of the fishing industry. The total quantity of fish marketed fresh in the several
  1300
  spring mackerel fisheries in 1903 was 13,787 half-boxes—an amount larger than has been marketed in any previous year, and the total value, £3,813, is higher than in any previous season. Under the scheme of the Congested Districts Board very excellent work was also done by the people on shore. They earned in handling fish alone between £300 and £400. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Why not extend the operations then?] Well, I think we are doing our best to extend the operations steadily, and I venture to say that this Report shows some very good results. For the Blacksod mackerel fishery the Board chartered a small steamer as in previous years for the conveyance of fish to the railway at Tonragee, Achill Sound, charging 1s. a box for the carriage of the fish, and 2d. for returned empties. During the week ended 28th May, 1903, the fishing at Downing's Bay, Donegal, was light but the quality of the fish was good the prices varying from 63s. to 72s. per cran. If you go through the records of the Department you will find the same story told—a story of steady increase, and there has been a sustained and intelligent effort by the Department to make the fishing industry more prosperous.
  Another branch of the work under the Congested Districts Board is what is known as the share system and on the Donegal coast fifty-nine boats were at work; the total earnings were £30,409; the amount which the Board retained as their share for the sinking fund and the cost of management was £11,141, whilst £19,268 was paid away to the crews of the boats as their share of the earnings. This does not look as if there had been complete

  1301
  failure. Then, in addition to the very considerable expenditure on the construction of piers and other works assistance to a very large amount has been granted by loans for the protection of fishing grounds, for boats, for fishing gear, and for the establishing of fish-curing and icing stations. Two lines of railway have been constructed in Donegal, one eighteen and a-half miles and the other forty-nine and a-half miles long. These lines were chiefly constructed in the interests of the fishing industry and the expenditure on them, out of funds provided by the Treasury, was something like £401,000. Taking the whole amount spent on Irish piers and harbours since 1850, we find that County Down had out of Imperial sources £24,770, and out of Irish sources £24,617; Donegal had £33,783 and £37,718 respectively; Mayo, £17,554 and —33,592; Sligo, £7,215 and £13,488; Cork, £18,891 and —39,269; and Clare, £9,438 and £23,709. Those are only some of the figures. The distinction which has been drawn between free grants and loans is very curiously marked, because the free grants, out of a total of £532,768, amounted to £440,472, and the loans only to £92,296. I do not think, therefore, that the charge against the Government has been sustained that money has not been found out of the free grants for piers and harbours.
  MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman should know that most of these grants were out of Irish grants. The whole of the sea fisheries fund was taken out of the Irish Church surplus.
  MR. WALTER LONG: What I have done is to give the expenditure on fishery
  1302
  piers and harbours alone. I have divided it into two heads—money from Imperial sources and money from Irish sources. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It is not Imperial money at all.]
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: The £223,000 is part of the church surplus.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Of the money derived under these two heads the amount from Imperial sources is £200,000, and there is in addition £332,159 which is derived from Irish sources, and that includes the sum which comes out of the Irish Church surplus. I do not imagine that money which is drawn from the Irish Church fund would be described as coming from an Imperial source. I am quite certain that the figures which I have given, amounting together to over £500,000, are divided between Imperial and Irish sources. In addition to that there is the sum of £100,000 available under the Marine Works Act of 1902. That Act, which was passed by the late Chief Secretary, was one of the results of a tour made by the right hon. Gentleman. Of this sum £86,800 has been already allocated towards works either in actual course of construction or works respecting which negotiations are at the present time in progress. This fact disproves the statement that nothing has been done. Further, both the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board lave advanced loans freely in all suitable cases for the supply of boats, nets, and gear, and they are equipped with ample funds for the purpose. The Congested Districts Board have also provided boats on the share system by which the cost of the boats is paid for out of the earnings of the fisheries.

  1303
  That is a brief account of what the Irish Government have done, and are doing at the present time, with regard to the development of the fisheries. It would have been more encouraging if one could have heard some small recognition of the work done. It is said that more money is wanted, and it is urged as a grievance against us that the people are expected to pay interest on the loans which have been made, and also to repay the loans. All I can say is that in many of the cases which have been mentioned to-night the harbours have been constructed out of public funds, while in other parts of the kingdom the cost of similar work has had to come out of the local rates. I say it is not encouraging to hear the statements which have been made to-night. I do not say it as a reproach, but I would point out that difficulty is created in that way. After all, this money can only be got if the taxpayers of this country are willing to provide it, and if they find it alleged that whatever is provided is devoted to useless purposes, so that the money is wasted, there is no good in coming to the Irish Government and asking them to press the Treasury for more funds. I think there should have been a franker and fairer recognition of the work the Irish Government has done in regard to fishery piers and harbours. If there has been failure to spend the money efficiently and to get the best results, we will endeavour to profit by experience and to avoid mistakes in future. It
  cannot be alleged that this country has not been generous in providing money, and I believe the facts and figures I have quoted show that that money has not been wasted as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland have contended. It has to a large extent been spent to the advantage of the country, and particularly in the localities in which the works have been carried out.
  MR. DUFFYsaid he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he had said regarding the money spent during the last fifty years in improving certain harbours. He rose for the purpose of calling attention to the little harbour of Kinvarra on the west coast in which his constituents took a deep interest. He had in the course of the past three or four years brought this matter under the notice of the late Chief Secretary and urged that something should be done to improve the harbour, which was in a disgraceful condition. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to carry out the improvements which were necessary in order that the trade in that particular district might be properly dealt with.
  And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, put that Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 89.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Bill, Charles

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Banbury, Sir Frederick (George

  Bingham, Lord

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Bond, Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Bull, William James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Purvis Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Randles, John S.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chapman, Edward

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Clive, Captain Percy A

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. A. Fred

  Renwick, George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, S. Forde

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

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Collings, Rt Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Keswick, William

  Robinson, Brooke

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Craig, C. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stop ford

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham

  Lawson, J. G. (Yorks. N. R.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Seely, C. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Leveson-Gower, F. N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

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

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyn'side

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Spear, John Ward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man'r

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Stroyan, John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Rt Hn. JG. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fitzroy, Hon. K. Algernnon

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Tuff, Charles

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, Rt. HnSir HE. (Wigt'n

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell, W J. H (Dumfriesshire)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (ElginandNairn

  Moore, William

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

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wilson, A. Stanlcy (York, E. R.)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry

  Percy, Earl

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Younger, William

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Viscount Valentia.

  Helder, Augustus

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asquith, Rt Hn. H Henry

  Bell, Richard

  1306

  1307

  Benn, John Williams

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Henderson, A. (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Reddy, M.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Richards, T. (W. Monm'th)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones. D. B. (Swansea)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roche, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

  Samuel, H L. (Cleveland)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kitson, Sir James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Langley, Batty

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Craig, R. Hunter (Lanark)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway)

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

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

  M'Kean, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Laren, Sir C. Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Findlay, A. (Lanark, N. E.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, J. C. (Okney)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norman, Henry

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gilhooly, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Wills, A. W. (N. Dorset)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Young, Samuel

  Griffith, Ellis, J.

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas Esmonde and Mr.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Patrick O'Brien.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Malley, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

NEW BILL.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (FEEDING OF CHILDREN).
  Bill to make provision for the feeding of Children in Public Elementary Schools,
  1308
  ordered to be brought in by Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. James Hope. Dr. Macnamara, Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Ernest Flower, Mr. Coghill, and Mr. Fordo Ridley.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (FEEDING OF CHILDREN) BILL.
  "To make provision for the feeding of Children in Public Elementary Schools," presented accordingly, and

  1309
  read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "setting forth the names, age, length of service, and place of education, of each salaried official in the various Government Departments in Ireland.—(Mr. MacVeagh.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he wished to draw attention to the order of Questions on the Paper of the House, which had caused great inconvenience to hon. Members during the last fortnightor three weeks. A large number of Questions, of which notice had been given to the Secretary of State for War, had been so placed in the order list of Questions as to shut out an Answer being given to them across the floor of the House, and the Answers were delayed until the following day when they appeared in the Order Paper. That had caused considerable inconvenience more than once when the Army Votes were under discussion. The one Question to which he wished to direct attention was of considerable interest to those hon. Members who were looking forward with apprehension or pleasure, as the case might be, to the statement which was to be made next day by the Secretary of State for War. He begged to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what had been the total cost of
  1310
  the barracks built under the Army Corps scheme on Salisbury Plain and in other districts; whether those barracks would be utilised under the present scheme; and, if not, whether building operations had been suspended.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Was this Question on the Paper for to-day?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It was on the Paper for to-day, but was not reached.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Then it cannot be asked now. The Standing Order provides that the answer will appear in the Order Paper to-morrow.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he would be quite content for the time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any arrangement could be made to prevent a repetition of what he had complained of. This was not the first time that such an occurrence had taken place. It would be in the recollection of the House that the same thing had happened last session and the early part of this session, when important Colonial Office Questions were to be discussed. He understood that the order in which Questions were placed on the Paper was arranged very largely for the convenience of Ministers. He did not wish to interfere with that convenience; but if it could be arranged that such Questions as he had referred to could be placed earlier in the list so as to admit of an oral Answer being given across the floor of the House it would be a great convenience to those on that side of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that the First Lord of the Treasury

  1311
  was the very last man in the world to whom he would like to give the disposition of the Questions or their arrangement. He had always understood that Mr. Speaker himself had formerly arranged the order of the Questions at his discretion; and he would be very sorry if that discretion were left to the First Lord of the Treasury from his knowledge of the way in which that right hon. Gentleman had manipulated the rules of the House. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order"] He recollected very perfectly that during the debates on the new rules it was suggested first of all that the Prime Minister should arrange the list of Questions, but that was met with a storm of opposition Then it was suggested that it should be left to the Clerks at the Table, but that was repudiated; and lastly it was agreed that it should be left in the hands of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker had intervened many a time to say that the time given to Questions should be economised to the best interests of hon. Members. He recollected Mr. Speaker intervening when Black Rod appeared in the House during Question time, thus encroaching on the rights of hon. Members. Then an arrangement was formally made to suit the convenience of the First Lord of the Treasury, who sailed into the House at the end of Questions and in many cases escaped answering any Questions at all.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I object to the word "escaped." I like Questions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that no priest of the Elysian mysteries ever
  1312
  better concealed any knowledge that he possessed than the, right hon. Gentleman. With great respect he held that Mr. Speaker, with his usual consideration in reference to safeguarding the privileges of hon. Members, arranged of late that Questions addressed to the First Lord should be put on to the list between the numbers forty and fifty. That often threw back Questions addressed to the Colonial Secretary, who in that way avoided many inconvenient interrogatories. As to the War Secretary, he was perpetually up in the clouds or under a cloud; and the system prevented him answering some of the awkward Questions. The first twenty Questions on the list were frequently of no general interest. Two Questions had been put down starred, with elaborate Answers as to whether the public should be admitted between three and four to Hampton Court, while on the same day the War Secretary was not allowed to answer some Questions on Army contracts. Under the new rules, the First Lord evaded answering Questions. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order, order!"] Well, the First Lord had provided a very convenient method of escaping answering Questions for himself and his colleagues.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It now being twelve o'clock, the Motion has lapsed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I put it again?
  *MR. SPEAKER: There is no business left on the Paper and the House now stands adjourned.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Donovan's Divorce Bill [H.L.]. Ordered That the petition of Alice Edith Donovan be further considered to-morrow.
Tralee Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Central Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over to-morrow.
Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ellenborough and the Lord Ludlow be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Duke of Bedford and the Lord Hylton; and that the Lord Ludlow be Chairman of the said Committee; read and agreed to.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 38.)

PETITION
  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Irish Trades Union Congress; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Tithe Acts, 1836 to 1891, the Copy-hold Act, 1894, the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900, the Drainage and Improvement of Land Acts, the Universities and College Estates Acts, 1858 to 1898, the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, etc., etc., for the year 1904.
  Annual Reports of proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., etc., for the year 1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL.
  Returns of the receipts and expenditure of the General Medical Council and of the Branch Councils, also of receipts and expenditure of the Dental Registration Fund, for the year ended 31st December, 1904. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (ALIENS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 37.)

  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(Lord Davey.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)then moved an Amendment to that part of Clause 1 which provides that for the purposes of the clause the word "street" shall include any highway or any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, or any vacant ground open to the public, common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto, or any space under a railway arch. The Amendment proposed the omission of the latter part of the definition, beginning with the words, "or any vacant ground." The Lord Chancellor said he was very sorry to differ from Lord James, who had moved at the last stage the insertion of the words he (the Lord Chancellor) now proposed to omit, on the question of the proper drafting of the Bill. He rather thought the question between them was not one of principle, but rather of drafting. The object of the Bill was to suppress betting in streets and public places. One of the difficulties with which Judges and magistrates had to deal was that language was sometimes made by statute to bear a meaning which did not properly belong to it. In this Bill the words "vacant ground open to the public" were used. What would their legal meaning be? There were pieces of gound which were vacant in the sense that no building was actually being erected upon them, but to which the public had no legal right of access. He would himself construe the words as meaning a place to which the public had a right of access, but, if they were construed to mean private property, that was an extension of the word street which seemed to him both ludicrous and very undesirable. The phrase "space under a railway arch" was also, he thought, open to a similar objection. If it meant merely the public highway beneath a railway arch, that was already a street according to the definition of the law. If it did not mean that, he asked their Lordships to consider the task which would fall upon the Judges and magistrates in construing the Act. The phrase "space under a railway arch" would apparently apply to every railway arch. With regard to common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse, he had no doubt that what was in his noble friend's mind was horse-racing.
  1144
  But was it confined to that? Was the ground on which races took place between human creatures a racecourse? The title and policy of the Bill had reference to public places and the suppression of a public nuisance, and the language to which he had called attention was, he thought, calculated to puzzle those who were called upon to administer the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 2, line 12 to leave out from the word 'not' to the end of the clause."—(The Earl of Halsbury.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid he was grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the changed position he had assumed. When his (Lord James's) Amendment was inserted on the previous occasion, the Lord Chancellor gave notice that he would move the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading. He was glad that the noble and learned Lord was not taking this extreme course. The Lord Chancellor had said that this was entirely a question of drafting, but he thought the Amendment was moved in a different spirit. He had never yet known a Government whip to be issued in support of a question of drafting. This was more a question of substance. He suggested that the debate should be adjourned, so that they could try to carry out what was agreed to in substance. He did not think the House ought to be troubled with the question if it was merely one of drafting.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that if his noble friend would agree with him that the sole object of the clause was to deal with places to which the public had a right of access, he was prepared to agree with him.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that both in the Metropolis and other large towns there were vacant places which did not come within this description, which were made places of rendezvous for betting purposes. Frequently betting men did not make their bets in the street, but used those de facto vacant spaces. There they erected their pitches and gave notice to clerks in countinghouses and other business places that they could find them there. But his

  1145
  noble and learned friend said that because they were only de jacto vacant, he would not include them. The Lord Chancellor asked the House to say they would sanction betting taking place on these places. He did not wish to come into conflict with the Lord Chancellor. If a poor person played pitch and toss on such a vacant space he would be arrested and put in prison; but they were asked to sanction the betting trade being carried on there by these fraudulent betting men, who did no good to anyone, but a great deal of harm. With regard to what the Lord Chancellor had said about the words ''common ground not used for the purpose of a racecourse," Lord James of Hereford explained that he inserted those words to meet the views of Lord Newton, who said Epsom and Ascot racecourses were common ground, and it would not be right in a Bill of this kind to interfere with betting on such racecourses.
  LORD DAVEYsaid he entirely sympathised with the object Lord James of Hereford had in view when he secured the insertion in the Bill of the words which the Lord Chancellor now proposed to delete. He thought the provision a wise one, and likely to prove a beneficial extension of the Bill, and have a useful operation. If the matter went to a division he would vote with Lord James, though at the same time he thought the language his noble and learned friend had introduced was open to criticism such as had been passed upon it by the Lord Chancellor. He regretted very much that the subject was not discussed as it ought to have been in the Standing Committee, but owing to some misunderstanding he was asked to adjourn the discussion until the Bill came up in their Lordships' House. If this question had been threshed out in the Standing Committee they would have had an opportunity of seeing whether, as a matter of drafting, some words might not be introduced which would equally well carry out the object which his noble and learned friend had in view, and at the same time not be open to the objections which had been made to them. It was too late now, he supposed, for that to be done, and therefore he must accept the words as they stood in the Bill. He had
  1146
  been subjected to some criticism outside the House for accepting what was now Clause 2 of the Bill on the Motion of his noble friend Lord Crewe. Clause 2 provided that—
  "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to any ground used for the purpose of a racecourse or adjacent thereto on the days on which races take place."
  His reason for accepting the Amendment was this, that the intention of the Bill was not to apply to racecourses. Whatever might be thought of the policy, their Lordships' House, having by its judicial decisions secured the use of the rings on racecourses for people of the wealthy class, would be legislating against the poor, as distinguished from the rich, if they prohibited betting on racecourses generally. That was what he had in his mind, and not any particular sympathy for the gentlemen who carried on this business on racecourses.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OP CANTERBURYwas sure many of their Lordships who were laymen like himself would sympathise with him in the difficulty in which he found himself in understanding the legal bearing of the arguments on either side which had been adduced by such high authorities. He saw the difficulty that Lord James might find himself in in pressing for the adjournment of the debate after the words which had fallen from the Lord Chancellor as to the meaning he attached to the proposal as the words now stood. But he thought the right course would be for some one in an independent position to move the adjournment in order that it might be seen whether a form of words could be devised to meet the objections of the Lord Chancellor. It was obviously the case that there was a difference of opinion in some small degree in substance and in a much larger degree in drafting. Would it not be well, after what Lord Davey had said as to the inadvertence by which these points were not dealt with in the Standing Committee, that they should now go back a little rather than go over the whole ground again? He hoped the three noble Lords would take compassion upon those of their Lordships who were not learned in the law, and

  1147
  who found themselves, therefore, in considerable perplexity on this question, and allow the debate to be adjourned.
  Moved, "That this debate be now adjourned."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
  LORD ALVERSTONEremarked that pressure of public duties elsewhere had prevented him being present at the discussions during the earlier stages of this Bill. But he was bound to say that he sympathised very strongly indeed with some of the objections Lord James took to the Bill as it originally stood. It was true that in the Bill "street" was defined as including any highway or any public bridge, road, lane, footway, square, court, alley, or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, and he believed that the great majority of cases would be hit by those words. But he had a good many of these cases before him from time to time in different shapes, and it was certainly true that a very large proportion of the evils Lord James had referred to did take place on certain pieces of land which could not be said to be either streets or thoroughfares, but a sort of "no man's land." It seemed to him that in some way or other words ought to be found to meet those cases. But he agreed that "any vacant ground open to the public," might be too wide. It seemed to him, reading this draft, that to cut the words out altogether would be not altogether satisfactory, and yet he could sea that some difficulty must arise if they stood in exactly the form in which they were now.
  EARL SPENCERwas reluctant to step in in a legal dispute, but the example of the most rev. Primate had encouraged him to say a few words. He thought those Members of their Lordships' House who were not lawyers would be put in an exceedingly difficult position if the Question was now pat, and the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor carried. If it was a mere question of drafting and the Lord Chancellor would agree to the adjournment so that the point could be dealt with, he would certainly advise the House to agree to an adjournment, in order that some satisfactory form of words might be found. The Bill proposed to
  1148
  do away with what was considered to be a very great evil. The definition, as put by Lord James, seemed to include more than a street or a public place, but the places so included were places where the evil of betting prevailed to an enormous extent. So far as he understood it, if the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor was agreed to, the House of Lords would be practically defending the use of such places for betting. Therefore they were in an exceedingly difficult position. But there would be no use in adjourning the matter if the Lord Chancellor would not agree that it was a mere question of drafting. If he did so agree, he hoped the matter would be adjourned. If the Lord Chancellor did not agree, then he (Earl Spencer) would divide against the Lord Chancellor's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If we are agreed that, in pursuance of the title of the Bill, the prohibition is only to apply to every public place to which the public have a right of access, I shall be happy to adjourn the matter to devise some clause for the purpose. But if it is proposed to include places to which the public have no right of access, but which are accidentally open, I object, because you would be going a great deal further than the object of the Bill, which is the suppression of betting in streets and other public places.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDthought that if the adjournment took place and they had an opportunity of meeting the Lord Chancellor there would be some chance of an agreement. At any rate, they would be in no worse position, and he hoped the adjournment would be agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Are we agreed that you only wish to deal with places to which the public have a right of access?
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: No; I cannot say that we are. I stand by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned to Tuesday the 4th of April next.

  STORES IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name on the Paper, to call attention to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Stores Accounts of the Army as to the wastage of supplies in South Africa and elsewhere; and to move to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, immediate action should be taken to inquire into the cause of such wastage in the past, with a view to the preveation of further wastage in the future."
  I daresay that to some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite the terms of this Resolution may be somewhat familiar. I say at once that I am not the originator of it. I have taken great pains to draft my Notice in a form which precludes any suspicion of a hostile attitude towards His Majesty's Government, and with this object I selected a form of words which I found on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, and which were made use of by a very staunch supporter of His Majesty's Government and a gentleman whose fidelity to the Government is beyond all suspicion, for during the last two or three years he has received the honour of knighthood for political services. I have transcribed word for word the Notice of Motion standing on the Paper of the House of Commons in the name of the hon. Gentleman in question, and I am bound to assume that the originator of this Motion meant what he said, and was desirous that Parliament should at the earliest possible moment consider the Stores Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and pass a Resolution inciting the Government to take immediate action thereon. But, my Lords, whatever his intention may have been, it is perfectly certain that the result of his notice of Motion was to prevent the House from having any opportunity of discussing this Report at all.
  Now, it seems to me that when, at the instance, or with the consent, of Ministers a blocking Motion is put down in the House of Commons, it is the bounden duty of the Opposition in this House, in the interests of free speech, to transfer the blocking Motion which cannot be considered in the other House
  1150
  to this House, where it can be dealt with. On this side of the House our voting power is insignificant, but at all events we are free to say what we please on any subject we pleases which is not always the case in another place, and I think that is a right we ought to zealously guard. I know perfectly well that since putting down my Motion the Prime Minister has changed his attitude and has promised a day for discussing this question in the House of Commons. Hearing that the Prime Minister had promised a day I had some notion of withdrawing my Motion, but my friends on this side have urged me to bring it on all the same, regarding it as a matter which ought to be discussed in this House. I think I ought to tell the noble Earl the Under-Secretary—he may not be aware of a statement which has been made in the other House—that there will be some sort of Interim Report by the Public Accounts Committee published possibly before the end of May. I think that is the earliest moment at which it will be out, and I am told that the Report will be based upon evidence by Sir William Butler, who is now engaged in considering these matters.
  I do not think the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War will differ from me as to the principles which should guide us ii discussing the responsibility of the War Office in respect of the wastage of war stores. No war has ever been waged without wastage. Public opinion will, I am sure, be willing to make very great allowances in respect of loss occasioned by muddle and confusion in the case of a great war; but it will make these allowances on two conditions, first, that at the earliest possible moment a full and searching investigation is made into the causes of the loss; and, secondly, that where the existing system is found to be at fault it shall be at once remedied. I will presently come to the question as to how far these conditions have been complied with. Meanwhile I do not think the noble Earl will deny that after making all reasonable allowance, there still remains a good deal in the Report which requires to be explained.
  The first thing I would observe is that the Auditor-General prefaces

  1151
  his Report with the statement that only certain portions of the Army accounts have been subjected to a detailed audit owing to the small staff available. I should like to hear what the noble Earl has to say as to this statement. Is the War Office going to see that the Auditor-General has a sufficient staff, and if not, why not?
  Under the head of South African War Expenditure there is a balance in the Cape Paymaster's account of cash advanced, but not accounted for, of £588,294. In paragraph 62 (a) on page 231, the Auditor-General says with regard to that—
  "In reply to inquiries, I have been informed by the War Office that this charge is for cash issued and not repaid, and that there is no documentary evidence to show how it was expended."
  He goes on to say—
  "It is understood, however, that the money was largely used in the purchase of stores required as a working capital for the railway."
  Surely, my Lords, some sort of documentary evidence as to some part of this expenditure ought to be forthcoming. Again, on the next page, in paragraph 66, it is stated that a sum of £1,681,818 was paid to the British South Africa Company for the Rhodesian Field Force. Part of this money was paid in respect of mules. It is a very puzzling matter to understand what happened in regard to those mules. The Public Accounts Committee had this matter under consideration, and it is dealt with in their Report of last July. They say, on page 12—
  "Nine hundred and ninety-nine mules were shipped from New Orleans, of which 158 died on the voyage, and the remaining 841 cannot be traced beyond Beira, where they were landed."
  They further add that—
  "No Imperial officer was present at Beira for political reasons."
  On this matter the Public Accounts Committee say—
  "Your Committee regard this experience as another object-lesson of the wastage and unsatisfactory results which must follow from entrusting the duties of the War Office in Army administration to amateur bodies such as the Yeomanry Committee and the South African Committee."
  Turning to the evidence produced before the Committee, it would seem that there
  1152
  is no absolute certainty that these mules ever left New Orleans or arrived at Beira. Questioned on this point, Sir Fleetwood Wilson said that the accounts given by the South African Committee—
  "Would not help us to trace missing mules. It is quite possible, it is presumable, and there is no reason to question, that they did send the mules, but they were lost."
  Subsequently he said, with regard to these mules and stores landed at Beira—
  "It is very difficult to say if they (the mules) were actually in anybody's charge in the true sense of the word."
  Again Mr. Chalmers says—
  "There is a large amount of stores not accounted for, harness and stores of various kinds which remained in South Africa, amounting in value to £252,880. Those and also other supplies of provisions and forage are not yet accounted for in Supply Account."
  Since July the Auditor-General observes that a small portion of these stores have been imperfectly vouched for, and that is as far as we can get.
  Under the head of "Sales of Surplus Supplies" the Auditor-General in last year's Report referred to certain large sales and repurchases of forage, apparently entailing considerable loss, which required explanation, but no explanation was forthcoming; and last March the Auditor-General returned to the charge and drew the attention of the War Office to the different rates at which similar stores brought to account in the same month had been sold to and purchased from Contractor A. There was no reply from the War Office. Soon afterwards the Auditor-General came across another instance of the same kind, where a contractor had supplied oats at 17s. 10d. per 1001bs. and bought them from the Army at the same station at 11s. per 100 1bs., and this transaction was accompanied by the remarkable statement that it was done—
  "To enable him to carry out his contract."
  This statement naturally attracted the attention of the Auditor-General, but no answer to his query is forthcoming, and this amazing statement still remains upon record as the settled policy of the War Office without any explanation at all. I really think the Noble Earl the Undersecretary ought to give us some explanation of these words to-night. It would appear from them that it is the settled policy of the War Office to buy

  1153
  dearly and sell cheaply in order to benefit the contractor; but, of course, that cannot be, and I think we are entitled to know the true meaning of those words. A somewhat similar transaction with another firm has led to a like result—inquiries by the Auditor-General, but no answer. That makes four occasions on which no answer has been received. Again, another firm—
  "Bought moat of the surplus articles at heavy losses to the War Office."
  Indeed, in some cases the Government actually received less than nothing for the articles sold, for the Customs duties amounted in some cases to more than the value of the articles. For instance, jam was sold at 2d. a tin containing a little over a pound, while the Customs duty was 2d. a pound, and to this the cost of railage has to be added. That was in Cape Colony. In Natal matters were even worse. There the Colony claims Customs duty in respect of jam at the rate of 2¼d. a 1b., while the jam was sold for 1⅙d. and 1½d. a 1b. I should like to know whether the colonies were pressed to reduce the Customs duty.
  The War Office seems to have been done all round over jam. They were given short weight, and, having paid in Customs duty rather more than they got for it, they were further mulcted in the expense of carrying it by rail. It would have paid them better to have buried it. Surely there were several preferable courses open. The colonies might have been asked under the circumstances to forego part of the duty, for the jam was imported not to sell, but to give to our soldiers. If the colonies had refused we might have re-shipped the jam to England and sold it at home. The question of short weight in jam, which has been principally exercising the public mind, is thus stated by the Auditor-General on page 258, paragraph 19—
  "It was noticed in the Durban Supply Account for July, 1903, that 337,704 1ba. of jam had been written off charge under the following circumstances. On the sale of surplus jam remaining on hand after the close of the war, the contractor who purchased it found that large quantities of tins contained only twelve ounces of jam; and as 1,350,816 of these tins were held on charge as containing one pound of jam each, it became necessary to write off charge 337,704 1bs. in respect of the short
  1154
  weight of four ounces in each tin. It was seen, on reference to some of the contracts for purchase of jam, that they included a provision that it should be supplied in tins containing one pound each. I therefore requested that information might be furnished as to the terms of the contracts in these cases, and as to the examination given to ensure that full contract weights were delivered; also whether any other cases of short weight had been brought to notice, and, finally, whether the deficiency was investigated at the time by a Court of Inquiry, and reported to the Treasury. To these inquiries, which were addressed to the War Office on 26th April, 1904, I have, up to the present, received no reply."
  I am told that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary will be able to offer to the House a satisfactory explanation, with regard to the short weight of jam. I am very glad to hear it, but I think the House is also entitled to some explanation as to why the queries of the Auditor-General, which were sent to the War Office on 26th April, have remained unanswered up to this time.
  In the case of jam, there is this remarkable circumstance to be considered in addition to what I have already stated. It has been elicited from the Secretary of State that the jam was bought through the Agents-General of Australia. This is colonial preference with a vengeance, for Australia, so far from being a jam exporting country, does not produce enough jam for its own consumption, and imports jam and sweet-stuffs from England to the extent of £100,000 a year. Again, under the head of "Clothing Accounts," it seems that 20,000 surplus suits were sold by tender, and the Auditor-General remarks that the new suits did not even realise half the normal peace contract price paid for them,—viz., 13s. a suit. Therefore the suits were sold at between 6s. and 7s. each. Why, I ask, should they have been sold at this enormous sacrifice? Why could they not have been kept in stock till they were wanted? Under the head of "Ordnance Store Accounts" the Auditor-General observes that the Public Accounts Committee, in their Report last July, stated that no improved system of packing ammunition had yet been devised by the War Office, but the subject was under their consideration. It is apparently still under their consideration, for in answer to the inquiries of the Auditor-General on this point no replies have

  1155
  been received. Yet it is acknowledged that the deterioration in over 50,000,000 rounds of ammunition was to a great extent due to imperfect packing. It appears to me that the War Office have had plenty of time in which to devise some better means of packing.
  I might multiply instances of the apparently reckless manner in which stores of every description were disposed of at what I must call rummage-sale prices, but I think I have said enough to show how serious the allegations are that the War Office have to meet. Large sums of money have been expended, and there is no evidence, or, at all events, no documentary evidence, to show how it has been expended. Eight hundred and forty-one mules have mysteriously disappeared and cannot be traced from the moment they were landed—if indeed they were ever landed at all, which, though probable, does not seem to be capable of strict proof. These mules, and stores of all kinds to a large amount, were landed under nobody's charge, and there is nobody responsible for their loss. Here the Public Accounts Committee put their finger on the weak spot, and, as we have seen, attribute the loss and confusion to the War Office having entrusted administrative duties to amateur bodies such as the South African Committee and the Yeomanry Committee. Then there are the sales of forage at 10s. and 11s. per 100 1bs., which seems in some cases to have been brought back again from the same contractor at the same station for 17s. 10d. and 17s. 8½d. per 100 1bs; and, as we have seen in one case, a truly amazing reason for this proceeding is given—namely, that it was done to enable the contractor to fulfil his contract.
  The case of the jam is no less remarkable. In the first place, it is a strange proceeding to go to Australia to provide jam for British troops, inasmuch as Australia buys a good part of the jam she consumes from England, not producing sufficient for her own consumption, much less to export to South Africa. If it pays Australia to buy jam in England, surely it would pay us to export our own jam to South Africa. I do not see why the British taxpayer
  1156
  should be mulcted for the benefit of the Australian contractor. In the next place, on attempting to sell the surplus jam it was found that some contractors had given short weight, which the military authorities had never discovered. In this connection one would like to know what measures were taken to examine the stores and check the quantities. And, to crown all, a large quantity of this surplus jam was sold at a price which did not even suffice to pay the Cus'ons duty, let alone the railway carriage. This is not a creditable state of things. However much we may concede as extenuating circumstances as regards high prices given for stores wanted in an emergency, it is reasonable to expect that the sale of surplus stores should be carried on on something in the nature of business principles. Some of the transactions I have mentioned are not of a character that can be excused on the gound of campaigning emergencies, and even if this excuse were valid it would be subject to the two conditions I mentioned at the beginning—namely, first, that at the earliest possible moment a searching investigation should be made, and, secondly, that where the existing system has been found to be at fault it should be at once amended.
  How stands the Government record with regard to these two conditions? The gravamen of the charge against the War Office is not so much that they did foolish things during the war in the matter of stores, but that after the war was over foolish proceedings went on occurring. Worse than that, the full and searching investigation which ought to have begun at once, was put off till the pressure of public opinion was too strong to be resisted, and, moreover, even when a weak point had teen discovered, the War Office did not always take the trouble to put matters right. For instance, in the case of the deterioration of ammunition by bad packing, in July last the War Office were engaged in considering a better system of packing, and they are still considering. Surely it is time they came to some conclusion in the matter. Again, take the case of jam. The War Office must have known for a long time, certainly over a year, that some contractors had given short

  1157
  weight, in some cases only 12 ozs. to the 1b. On April 26th last year the Auditor-General asked the War Office whether they were making any investigation. He received no answer. The Secretary of State was interrogated a few days ago, and his answer was that inquiries have been going on for four weeks; that is to say, no inquire at all was instituted for nearly a year after the Auditor-General had reminded the War Office of the fact and pressed them to make an inquiry. This is a very bad case, as it involves a charge of dishonesty; yet the Secretary of State when first questioned had not got so far in his inquiry as even to be able to give the names of the accused contractors. The inquiry should have been completed long ago, and the contractors either condemned or exonerated.
  The excuse given by the Secretary of State for not concerning himself to identify the firms which supplied short weight was remarkable. He said—
  "As the orders were placed with the colonial authorities through their Agents-General, the names of the colonial firms who enabled the Colonies to carry out their engagements did not concern the War Office."
  Surely it is the duty of the War Office to press for compensation from the defaulting contractors. I do not suppose for a moment that the Colonies desire to shield any delinquent contractor. Indeed, the Agents-General have very properly said that Australia is prepared to pay compensation if their contractors are shown to be in default. The House will observe that the importance of the Auditor-General's Report only began to dawn upon the War Office after it had become the occasion of inconvenient Questions being asked. At first the Prime Minister sheltered himself from discussion behind a blocking Motion, and it was only a very few days ago that he acknowledged the importance of the subject and promised a day for discussion. When Ministers can read a document like the Auditor-General's Report and discover nothing particular in it until they are toll, their perceptions must have become angularly obtuse.
  It would seem that the ordinary administrative duties of the War Office have been for some time past carried out in a lax
  1158
  fashion. The heads of the Department have, it would seem, been too busily engaged in contriving grandiose schemes of Army reform to concern themselves about the humbler task of supervising the humdrum routine business of office, and that, I take it, has been at the root of the amazing state of things disclosed by the Report of the Auditor-General. The high authorities at the War Office are like the astronomer in the fable who, while gazing at the stars, fell into a well at his feet. The noble Earl will have to address himself to two direct questions. He must first deal with the muddle and confusion that reigned during the war and for some time after. His next task will be to justify the dilatory proceedings of the War Office, their neglect to answer the pressing questions of the Auditor-General, and the length of time they have taken to make such a simple reform as the devising of a system to pack ammunition which would do away with a great deal of the enormous waste suffered by its deterioration. My complaint is that they have not taken in hand such matters as this strenuously. They have been content to let things slide until public opinion has forcibly prodded them on. I think the House will be doing a service to the War Office and to the country by passing the Resolution I have put down on the Paper, the originator of which is, as I have said, a staunch supporter of His Majesty's Government. The passing of such a Resolution will stiffen the War Office in the good intentions which I give them the credit of having formed, and the action of your Lordships in applying this friendly stimulus will certainly commend itself to the public.
  Moved to resolve,"That, in the opinion of this House, immediate action should be taken to inquire into the cause of the waste of supplies in South Africa and elsewhere, with a view to the prevention of further wastage in the future."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I do not deny the importance of the subject which the noble Lord has raised. At the same time I think he will agree

  1159
  with me that it is rather a difficult one to discuss at this moment. The noble Lord mentioned a circumstance of which, I confess, I was not aware. I did not know that it was the intention of the Public Accounts Committee to furnish to the House of Commons an Interim Report on this subject, but surely that very admission by the noble Lord must exemplify the difficulty in which your Lordships find yourselves in discussing this subject to-day. It should be borne in mind that the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report is not a Report submitted to the War Office, but to Parliament. It is the brief, so to say, of the members of the Public Accounts Committee in investigating the accounts presented to Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee go into these matters in very great detail, and until their Report is received it is very difficult for us to make up our minds as to what are the facts and what are the fictions relating to any question that may arise.
  The noble Lord opposite is, I think, very hard upon us. He charges the War Office with being very dilatory in dealing with the whole matter. It is important, I think, in a case such as this that your Lordships should keep the main facts in your minds, and I will venture briefly to sketch them in order to show that we have not been as dilatory as the noble Lord thinks. There were, of course, very large surpluses of stores at the end of the war. The rule was, I understand, to have four months supplies in hand. When the war came to an end demobilisation was very rapid, and we were left with a very large surplus of stocks. The question arose, what were we to do with them? We might have brought them home for sale; but we believed that to adopt such a course would have been very expensive. There would have been the cost of collecting at ports, of putting the supplies on board ship, and of transport home, and it was pointed out to us that the authorities in South Africa were of opinion that the cheapest thing would be to get rid of the surplus stores in South Africa. It was believed that we should be able to do so at a price which would warrant us in taking that course, while
  1160
  at the same time saving heavy charges for storage, deterioration, cost of transport, and so forth. The difference between the selling and buying price was regarded by the authorities in South Africa as justified by the above considerations, and there appeared to be no ground to question this conclusion at home in view of the circumstances then disclosed. Various queries were made on transactions in South Africa at the time—I am speaking of a year and a-half ago—and in every case the explanation given was on the lines I have just sketched to your Lordships, and was accepted by us as satisfactory.
  The later cases, the cases which did not come to our notice till last autumn, did not so satisfy us. We were not satisfied with certain refunds made to contractors which did not seem to be governed by the terms of the contract. We were not satisfied on several points, and therefore we made up our minds to have further inquiries, not only into those cases, but into all cases. I repeat that the earlier cases were entirely satisfactory; the later cases were not satisfactory, and this fact threw doubt upon the earlier cases, and we therefore decided to re-open the whole question. It was not a question of accounting, but one that concerned competence and honesty; and it was not, therefore, a fit subject to be inquired into simply by a Finance Branch at the War Office. For that reason my right hon. friend the Secretary of State appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir William Butler, to consider the whole case, and that Committee was given power to call witnesses. I understand that they have called a large number of witnesses and are going very thoroughly into the whole question, but really until we receive the Report of the Committee it is very difficult for me to give detailed replies to some, at any rate, of the queries addressed to me by the noble Lord opposite. Sir William Butler's Committee, I believe, is not expected to report for some weeks, but it has come to my knowledge, and also, I notice, to the knowledge of the noble Lord opposite, that Sir William Butler has already been called as a witness by the Public Accounts Committee. I understand that he was present at the meeting of the

  1161
  Committee last Friday. Anyhow, it is open to the Public Accounts Committee to call him as a witness; and that is the only proper way, I submit, in which the facts can become known to your Lordships and the public as well as to the War Office. I trust, therefore, there will be no prejudging of this matter. No one has been proved guilty of anything yet. There is ground for suspicion, and there is also ground for inquiry. That inquiry is being carried out by the accounts branch in South Africa, by the accounts branch here in London, and by Sir William Butler's Committee, all focussing in the inquiry of the Public Accounts Committee. We are every bit as anxious to know the facts as the noble Lord opposite.
  I now come to some of the details referred to by my noble friend. First of all he is very hard on us, because, as he says, we have been very dilatory in replying to the Auditor-General's queries. The noble Lord will, I am sure, realise that every case which the Auditor-General has queried is from its every essence a difficult one.
  A NOBLE LORD: Simple as anything.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I think not. They are all cases that have occurred in South Africa, and we have had to make inquiries out there in order to enable us to reply to the queries. We have had to send for copies of contracts and documents, and we found in many cases that no such documents existed at all. We are doing our best to expedite inquiry. A further cause of delay occurred in this way. It was most important that all documents and contracts should be before Sir William Butler's Committee, and therefore a number of papers were retained at the War Office after they were received for the use of this Committee, but my right hon. friend the Secretary of State has stated in another place that he has given directions for copies of the contracts to be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
  Now I come to the much discussed question of jam. As to the first point raised by the noble Lord opposite, that of the Customs duty, I may toll him that we are trying very hard to get that duty
  1162
  back from the Colonial Government, and negotiations to that end are still proceeding. With reference to the question of weight, I think I shall be able to reassure your Lordships. First of all, I am informed that none of the jams supplied was in tins containing only 12 oz. Part of the supply was in tins containing 16 oz., but the bulk was supplied in "nominals"—that is to say, tins containing either 14 oz. or 28 oz., 1 1b. or 2 1b. "nominals" These "nominals" were either ordered as such, or were in execution of orders for net weights. In the latter case an extra number of "nominals" was supplied equivalent to the deficiency. In all cases the country received the full quantity of jam paid for. When, however, the sale to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General refers in his Report took place in South Africa, the jam was sold by net weight and not by tins. Any apparent shortage is attributed in the first place to the fact that undoubtedly the climate would be expected to cause shrinkage. I am informed by officers who were in South Africa that in many cases when they opened their tins of jam they had to cut off a considerable thickness of sugar which had crystallised at the top. This was a shrinkage due to the climate, and it may in many cases have caused loss of weight. In the second place, the local military authorities, under a misapprehension, treated the tins as containing a full pound of jam each, and that is the reason why, on subsequent investigation, it was necessary for us to make a refund to the contractors who had bought these tins as being 16 oz. tins. It was simply a mistake by our officers out there, which we had, of course, to rectify. The noble Lord asks why jam was bought from Australia, and quotes the fact that 100,000;1bs. of jam is imported into Australia every year. I have visited Australia, and I cannot imagine that 100,000 1bs. of jam can possibly represent the whole consumption of that continent.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I did not say it did.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I remember while in Tasmania noticing the enormous quantities of fruit grown there, and I think an Australian would be very

  1163
  much upset if he were calmly informed that Australia was a jam importing country only, and was not a fit country to which to go to purchase jam. I understand that the jam was purchased in the Colonies at the request of the Colonies, who were very anxious to take part in provisioning the British Army. I do not think it was an entirely unreasonable thing that we should have met them in that matter. The noble Lord asked whether the War Office were going to see that the Comptroller and Auditor-General had a sufficient staff. I would point out that this has nothing whatever to do with the War Office. It is not our business; the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not belong to the War Office, he belongs to Parliament.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I quite recognise that. It was my mistake. But you might press the Treasury.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: It is not the Treasury, but Parliament, and we are always pressing Parliament. Then the noble Lord asked a Question with reference to the mules, and stated that there was no proof that the animals ever landed at Beira. But we have a record of their being in camp up country. I have made inquiries, and am told that we have a letter stating that the particular vessel under review lost 141 mules on the voyage, that on landing thirty-six more died, and that twenty-two more were lost, leaving 799 mules accounted for in camp. Of these 728 were sent for the use of the Rhodesian Field Force, the remaining seventy-one having died. These particulars, combined with the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor-General in his Report accepts the statement—on page 233— that the mules were landed in South Africa, clearly establishes the claim that the mules did arrive. In reply to the noble Lord's Question as to the statement that sales of forage took place to a contractor at certain prices "to enable him to carry out his contract," I would inform him that this is one of the cases which have been specially referred to Sir William Butler's Committee, and we look to the Report of that Committee to fully explain all the circumstances. As regards the packing of ammunition, we have been considering that matter for a long time.
  1164
  I was down at Woolwich last Autumn, and saw a new form of box for packing ammunition, but I understand the matter has not been definitely settled yet. It should not be forgotten that the deterioration of these 50,000,000 rounds of I ammunition was not entirely due to bad packing. Included in this amount was ammunition picked upon the veldt which had been dropped from soldiers pouches, and therefore the deterioration was not surprising.
  I admit that the prices we received for re-sales were not high; but the noble Lord will, I am sure, recognise that where there is no demand it is often difficult to get any price at all, and, in cases where it is cheaper to sell than to move, the seller has to take the best price he can get. Every case has to be treated on its merits, and the only thing to do is to try your hardest to get the best possible price you can in each individual case. I think the noble Lord will admit that we are meeting him by making inquiries. The fullest inquiries are being made, and, whatever may be the result of those inquiries, lean only repeat the statement made by my right hon. friend in another place that if any person is proved guilty he will be dealt with without fear or favour. The noble Lord says inquiry' may be trusted to prevent recurrences of these incidents in future. Inquiry, of course, always helps if it results in useful information, but that is not all. We think we can do a great deal to avoid a recurrence of such cases in any future war, and we have drawn up a new system for supply accounting in time of war, which will ensure greater simplification, and therefore a more satisfactory method of dealing with such matters. We have also under consideration the formation of a new accounts department, or financial branch of the Army, which will go to the seat of war. This branch will in no way decrease the responsibility of supply officers for purchase and sale of stores, but they will in future have at their elbow, if they require it, the benefit of the advice of financial experts. There will also be this safeguard on behalf of the public, that the review of all cases in time of war will take place on the spot, and not, as now, months afterwards. I do not wish to go into the details of the new organisation. They are already in your Lordships'

  1165
  possession in the Memorandum of my right hon. friend; but I trust I have said enough to show that if any fraud has taken place we are hot, upon the track of it, and if what has taken place has been due to ignorance, we are, I hope, greasing the wheels in order to carry matters in the right direction to avoid this in the future. I hope that in the circumstances my noble friend will not see any necessity to press his Motion.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I do not propose to press my Motion. I only knew this afternoon that Sir William Butler was to be examined before the Public Accounts Committee and that matters were in fair train for the issuing of a Report before the end of May. With one or two of the observations which the noble Earl made I cannot quite agree. I do not think he has fully explained the wastage in regard to the jam. It seems to me that a large quantity of pots of jam which ought to have contained 14 oz. only contained 12 oz. of eatable jam, the remainder not being up to the mark. When he says the net weight was made up, I suppose he means the net weight taking into consideration in that net weight the solid stuff at the top of the jam which was not eatable; so that apparently there was a certain amount of wastage, and when the jam was sold again you had to take off 2 oz. in every 14 oz.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: In some cases.
  LORD MONKSWELL: I think it is rather strange that the noble Earl should still stick to his guns with regard to buying jam from Australia. Surely it is a strange proceeding to go to Australia to provide jam for British troops inasmuch as Australia buys a good part of the jam she consumes from England, not producing enough for her own consumption. It would undoubtedly have been cheaper to have used English jam. As to the mules, I am very glad to hear they did arrive, but there is no evidence of that in the Auditor-General's Report. I am also glad to hear from the noble Earl that the War Office are considering the question
  1166
  of packing ammunition and will shortly come to some conclusion with regard to that. But the noble Earl has not answered my Question with regard to the sale of now suits at half their contract price. I congratulate him on the establishment of the new supply accounting branch and the new accounts branch. I think he has answered me as fully as he could in the circumstances, and I withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  MILITARY BUILDINGS AT ST. LUCIA.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what expenditure arid what contract liabilities have been incurred for the barracks, hospital, and other buildings erected by the military authorities at St. Lucia during the last three years; whether it is the fact that, in spite of the decision to withdraw British troops from the West Indies, the works are still being continued at St. Lucia; and, if so, why, and to what use it is intended to put these buildings in the future.
  This question raises an important point of policy and also refers to a large expenditure of money. I think it is only fair that I should state the reason why I have placed it on the Paper. I do not pretend that it is based upon firsthand information. It is fifteen years since I was at St. Lucia, and these buildings were not then thought of; but it so happens that at this moment I have a great personal friend in the West Indies who is a solid and trustworthy person, and not one likely to be led astray by mere gossip. Writing to me on February 22nd, he describes a visit he paid to these barracks and buildings, and goes on to say—
  "Even the colonists who have profited by the expenditure openly laugh at the absurdity of having erected expensive barracks and a large hospital for troops within the last three years and then deciding that they shall not be used. I am told that in this island alone over £1,000,000 sterling has been so spent. The same thing on a greater or less scale has been going on all round. A year or two ago a sort of

  1167
  funicular tramway was made from the harbour to the barracks at the top of the hill. It was so badly constructed and engineered that a serious accident happened the first time it was used, and it has never been tried since, and the thousands which it cost have been thrown away."
  A week later he writes to me as follows—
  "Since writing I have heard that the barracks hospital, and other buildings erected by the military authorities at St. Lucia have cost —3,000,000. Apparently, under their contract they have no power to stop the work, so that although they have decided to remove the troops and have no further use for the barracks it is cheaper to continue to build rather than pay heavy penalties for breach of contract."
  I think your Lordships will agree that even if there is only a moderate amount of foundation for the statements contained in these letters, I was justified in bringing the matter before your Lordships' notice for the purpose of eliciting information with regard to it. If I might add one further Question to those on the Paper, I would ask the noble Earl how far the Colonial Office was responsible for the initiation of these works, and whether the late Colonial Secretary was responsible for the works when they were undertaken.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I am happy to be able to inform ray noble friend that the case is not quite such a grave one as his friend thinks. I am informed that the expenditure at St. Lucia during the last three years is £133,086.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Will the noble Earl give me the total expenditure on these buildings?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have not got the total expenditure. The noble Lord in his Question asks me to state what expenditure has been incurred during the last three years, and that figure I have given him. I shall be glad to get him the other figures if he requires them. It is not the fact that the works are still being continued at St. Lucia, except that we felt it would be unwise to allow any building to remain not watertight. Therefore, we are completing any particular single building
  1168
  that was not finished in order to make it watertight in case it is ever required. We do not, however, anticipate that it will be required in the early future. The noble Lord next asked to what use it was intended to put these buildings in the future. As far as I know it is not intended to use them for any purpose at all. We are going to put caretakers in and leave them in their charge. The noble Lord will, I am sure, understand that in making a building watertight we are not necessarily committed to carry out the whole scheme originally intended if St. Lucia had been retained as a defended port. It is not our usual custom to make contracts for entire schemes, but for individual buildings or groups of buildings, and I do not anticipate that the sum necessary to finish off these buildings and make them watertight will be very large. As to the attitude of the Colonial Office in this matter—I am speaking without book, because the noble Lord did not give me notice of this Question—I should think that the Colonial Office had nothing to do with it at all. These buildings were part of a scheme of naval and military policy. I shall be prepared to make further inquiry in the matter if the noble Lord wishes it.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I made some remarks the other night on the expenditure at St. Lucia, and my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in his reply rather denied that there had been any large expenditure such as I hinted at. I immediately replied, "Not on the Navy Estimates, but on the other Estimates." I think we ought to have from the noble Earl a full account of the total expenditure on these buildings. The fact that the Government have spent large sums of money on these barracks and other buildings, and have now decided not to use them, is a strong condemnation of their previous policy. The noble Earl says he does not believe that the Colonial Office had anything to do with this. If I remember rightly there was a very important Joint Committee, which I knew very well when I was at the Admiralty—the Colonial Defence Committee, on which the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Colonial Office were

  1169
  represented—which constantly went into all questions of this sort, and they were, I imagine, responsible for this large expenditure. I am glad to hear the promise which has been given by the noble Earl that we shall have a full account of the monies that have been spent on these works.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the Question on the Paper had reference to the expenditure during the last three years, and that Question was answered categorically by my noble friend. Of course, the other information can easily be provided, and I dare say it will show, as the noble Earl supposes, that very largo sums of money have been spent in past years on St. Lucia. The fact is, there has been a change of naval policy, and these things will happen. If the noble Earl suggests that after we have spent a great deal of money on naval bases in different parts of the world, we are bound to stick to those naval bases and go on spending money upon them, I must take leave to differ from him.
  EARL SPENCER: I particularly said the other night that I did not condemn the course taken by the Government, but that I thought that after a deliberate policy had been adopted a full and ample justification of the change should be made.
  *THE MARQUESS OK LANSDOWNE: I have no doubt that the change of policy could be fully explained, if desired, by persons claiming more expert knowledge in these matters than I possess. I believe the noble Earl is quite right when he says that the expenditure incurred in past years was incurred after examination and discussion by that very important and useful body, as it then was, the Colonial Defence Committee, on which all the Departments responsible were represented.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, till tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.