Sitting of 30 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
South Suburban Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Accrington Corporation Bill (by Order); Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Malvern Water Bill. "To confirm and legalise the construction of certain waterworks constructed by the Urban District
1694
Council of Malvern for the supply of Water to their district; to authorise the Council to construct additional waterworks for the supply thereof; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Birmingham Corporation Bill; Brentwood Gas Bill; Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Croydon Gas Bill; North Sussex Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act, to regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland." [Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for uniting the ecclesiastical parish of Holy Trinity, Portsea, with one or more contiguous parishes, and for authorising and carrying into effect an agreement between the Bishop of Winchester and the Admiralty for the sale of the church and vicarage house of Holy Trinity, Portsea, and for the disposal of the purchase money and the endowments of the benefice; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Holy Trinity, Port-sea, Bill [Lords.]
Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Exmouth (four); Leicester; Liverpool; and

  1695
  members of the London County Council; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Earl's Court; Hayle; Newport (Essex); and South-sea; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WINES IMPORTED.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th February; Mr. Gibbs]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]
  ALIENS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 13th March; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
  NAVY (VOLUNTEER RESERVE).
  Copy presented, of the Regulations' the Civil and Administrative Rules, and the Acts providing for the Constitution of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Areas, Population, and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland [by Command], to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 3, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum on the state of the African Protectorates administered under the Foreign Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Publication of the "New Ireland Review."
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been
  1696
  called to the publication and free circulation of a work called the "New Ireland Review" by the Department of Agriculture; if he can state the entire cost of this work to the public; and whether, in view of the statements on page 13, he will explain why it should be circulated at the public expense.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. The "New Ireland Review" is neither published nor circulated by the Department.

  Appointment of Miss Duffy as Crochet Lace Teacher at Monaghan.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland has refused to sanction the appointment made by the County Monaghan Committee of Technical Instruction of Miss Brigid Duffy, as crochet lace teacher, in view of the fact that Miss Duffy held a similar position with the approval of the Department under the County Galway Committee of Technical Instruction from 1901 till 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Water Long.) The Department refused to approve of the appointment of Miss Duffy because she was not qualified for teaching fine Clones crochet, which is an essential for county Monaghan. The work upon which Miss Duffy was engaged in county Galway was chiefly raised crochet.

  Farms for Evicted Tenants.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have got un-tenanted land on hand in any part of the country; and, if so, whether they are prepared to provide for Thomas M'Cormack, Timahoe, Queen's County, an evicted tenant, who has already notified his willingness to accept an equivalent farm elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No, Sir, but if the Commissioners should acquire untenanted land in this county the claims of evicted tenants will be considered.

  Reinstatement of Lord Lansdowne's Evicted Tenants at Luggacurran.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any communications have passed between the Estates Commissioners and Lord Lansdowne relative to the reinstatement of his evicted tenants at Luggacurran, Queen's County; and, if so, whether he can state what is the result of those negotiations, and also the number of evicted tenants who remain unreinstated on the Luggacurran Estate of Lord Lansdowne.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An inspection of this estate is proceeding, and the inspector has been instructed to inquire and report as to the reinstatement of evicted tenants. I have no information as to the number of the latter.

  Tenant Purchasers in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the actual number of persons who have purchased their farms in county Longford under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, and whose agreements have been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Advances have been sanctioned to 313 persons.

  Science Training Classes in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Part II. organisers science classes, which deal with the programme for sixth and seventh standard pupils in boys' schools, or any courses for training female teachers in the special programme in elementary science in girls' schools have been held in the counties of Mayo or Galway; whether the Commissioners of National Education intend to make provision for the training in these programmes of the teachers of these counties, for the majority of whom no technical schools are available; and, if not, whether they will have these programmes withdrawn.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of
  1698
  National Education intend that in districts generally where no technical schools are available for training the teachers any science instruction is to be given to the sixth and seventh standard pupils in boys' and girls' schools respectively; and, if so, what provision is to be made in these districts to give the teacher the necessary training to enable them to impart such instruction.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No such classes have been held in Mayo or Galway, but teachers from both counties have attended classes of the kind in Dublin. No special arrangements have been made for these counties, but, as I have already stated, the head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained to continue the training of teachers in science. It is not intended to withdraw the programmes for the sixth and seventh standards. These programmes were promulgated tentatively, and managers are strongly urged to submit for approval syllabuses to suit the particular requirements of their localities. Object-lessons on suitable subjects are considered sufficient in all standards in schools having only one teacher, or not having teachers specially qualified in science.

  Sitting of Sub-Land Commission at Bantry.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience the small occupiers of land in the Castle-town Berehaven district have been subjected to by the action of the Sub-Land Commissioners, who recently held a sitting of their Court at Bantry, thereby causing some of the occupiers referred to to travel forty miles to have their cases heard; whether he has received a resolution from the Castletown Berehaven District Council in connection with this matter; and whether in future he will take steps to have a sitting of the Land Commission Court held at Castletown Berehaven.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The sittings of the Sub-Commissioners are fixed by the Land Commission, with due regard to the general convenience of all

  1699
  the parties interested, and the time at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners. No complaint was made at the recent sittings at Bantry of the nature referred to in the Question, and I have no power to intervene in the matter as suggested. The Land Commission, however, are always prepared to meet, as far as is possible, the expressed desire of the various parties, and I have communicated to them the resolution of the district council.

  Legalising of Colonial Marriages in this Country.
  GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the communications received from the Governments of the self-governing Colonies relative to the legalising in this country of marriages lawfully contracted in other parts of the Empire.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The communication on the subject which I have received is a despatch from the Government of the Australian Commonwealth, and I will lay that despatch upon the Table of the House.

  Issue of Transvaal Loan.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table further correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Transvaal Government as to the issue of the Transvaal Loan; and whether he will include the draft Ordinance forwarded to the Transvaal on August 22nd, 1903, for sanction by the Legislative Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) All the material correspondence up to January, 1904, on this subject has been published in Cd. 1895. I do not propose to publish that which has taken place since, as it was of a strictly confidential character. The publication of the draft Ordinance would not, in my opinion, add any material information, but I shall be happy to send a copy to the hon. Member if he desires to see it.

  Negotiations with Colonies on Subject of Retaliation, etc., previous to 1902.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any records in the Colonial Office of negotiations with the Colonial Ministers on the subject of retaliation and colonial preference previous to the Colonial Conference of 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I refer the hon. Baronet to the Prime Minister's Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire.

  Lost Dogs removed by the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that out of 27,994 dogs removed by the Metropolitan Police from the streets of the Metropolis, 23,261 were taken to the Dogs Home, Battersea, and 4,181 restored to their owners by the police, will he state in what districts the 552 dogs which have not been accounted for were captured, and whether it is to be assumed that they were destroyed by the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I fear I cannot undertake to inform the hon. Member in what districts these 552 dogs were captured, but they are accounted for as follows:—505 of them escaped from the police, thirty-five were destroyed by the police, and twelve died while in their hands.

  Free Railway Passes for Members of Parliament.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the British Colonies and on the Continent, Members of Parliament have free passes on the railways; whether he will approach the carrying corporations with a view to arrange that Irish Members shall have free passes to and from the House of Commons to Ireland during the session.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are aware that in some countries free passes over the railways are

  1701
  given to Members of the Legislature. It is not proposed to take any action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

  Accident to Live Stock on Midland Great Western Railway—Failure to hold Board of Trade Inquiry.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an accident to live stock occurred on the Midland Great Western Railway Company's line in November, 1903; and whether he will find out the reason given or explanation for the omission of holding the usual Board of Trade inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am not aware of any accident of the nature described on the Midland Great Western Railway in November, 1903, but the hon. Member is perhaps referring to an accident on the 6th of that month to a cattle train on the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, as he recently

  Colony

  Imports.

  Exports.

  1896.

  1904.

  1896.

  1904.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Canada

  16,017,263

  22,621,164

  5,352,029

  10,624,221

  New Zealand

  8,060,360

  12,741,310

  3,995,092

  6,315,090

  Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900—Rules.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state what are the results of the Board of Trade's action in issuing the Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 616, on August 8th, 1902, pursuant to the Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900; how many places where tow-roping and propping were practised have been prohibited under Section 2 of the above rules; how many engines and tenders have been fitted with power brakes under Section 3; how many stations and sidings, where shunting operations are carried on, have been lighted as per Section 4; how many places where point rods and signal wires have been covered over or removed under Section 5; how many engines have been provided with convenient places for tool
  asked for a copy of the report thereon. The circumstances of that accident did not seem to call for investigation, and an inquiry was not therefore ordered by the Department.

  British Trade with Canada and New Zealand.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and New Zealand in 1896 and 1904 respectively; and of the exports of British goods to those Colonies in the same years.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The declared values of the imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and New Zealand respectively, and of the exports thereto of British and Irish produce from the United Kingdom in 1896 and 1904 were as follows:—
  boxes and fire-irons as per Section 7; whether look-out men are always employed to give warning to men employed in relaying or other similar dangerous occupations on the permanent way as per Section 9; and whether applications have been received by the Board for extension of time as per Section 10; and, if so, will he give the names of the companies applying and the reference of such applications.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) It is not possible to state in detail what has been the action of the railway companies in carrying out the statutory rules in question. The Board are ready, as the hon. Member is aware, to make inquiry into cases where it is alleged that the rules are not observed. Three companies have, under Rule 10, applied for, and have been granted, some extension of

  1703
  time for complying with certain rules, viz., the Metropolitan District, and the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Companies in respect of Rule 5, and the Brecon and Merthyr Railway Company in respect of Rule 3.

  Perthshire Motor-Car Order—Omission of the Village of Bridge of Earn.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Lord-Advocate on what ground the village of Bridge of Earn was omitted by the Secretary for Scotland from the scheduled areas in the recent Motor-Car Order for Perthshire; whether he has received memorials on the subject from the parish council and school board showing that the road through the village is one much frequented by motors, and that considerable danger is apprehended from the absence of any limitation on the speed of motors passing through the village; whether a limitation of speed is imposed in other and smaller villages on the same and similar roads in Perthshire; and, if so, whether, in view of the feeling in the locality, he will amend the Order accordingly and impose a maximum rate of speed within the village.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The memorials referred to are received at the Scottish Office. The question of restricting speed at Bridge of Earn, among other places, was considered by the late Secretary for Scotland, who had a personal conference with the road authority of Perthshire before issuing the order limiting speed at various points in the county, and whose decision was that sufficient ground was not made out for including the road at Bridge of Earn in the restricting order. The present Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for departing from that decision, which was reached after careful and repeated consideration, and with an intimate knowledge of the county. I may remind the hon. Member that the road authority are entitled to erect warning signposts at points where no speed limit is imposed if they think it necessary.

  Lift Accident in a City Hotel—Precautions for Public Safety.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the
  1704
  Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent inquest held before Dr. Waldo concerning the death of a young woman who lost her life through falling down a lift in a City hotel; and, in view of the recommendation of the jury that all lifts should be provided with locking gates, and in the case of the Metropolis be subject to inspection by the London County Council, will he communicate with that body on the subject, or take such other steps as he may consider prudent in the interest of the public safety.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have not received any report of the inquest referred to in the Question. The safe construction, arrangement, and fencing of lifts is a matter which is carefully attended to in factories, warehouses, and other places coming under the Factory Act; but there are no powers, so far as I am aware, to deal with the matter in other places such as hotels and offices. Legislation would be required for the purpose, which I am afraid I cannot promise to undertake; but any proposals for giving local authorities the power of dealing with the matter would receive my careful consideration.

  Motor-Car Drivers—Convictions for Failure to produce Licences.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the wording of Section 3 (4) of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, will he state whether any persons holding a licence for driving a motor-car have been summoned for not producing such licence when demanded by the police; and, if so, will he state the number of prosecutions, and the number of convictions obtained; and, to meet the case of motor driver licence-holders who do not happen to have the licence in their personal possession at the time it is demanded, will he consider the expediency of instructing the police to enter prosecutions in those cases only in which the motor driver's assertion that he has taken out a licence has proved on inquiry to be false.

  1705
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My information extends to the Metropolitan Police District only. In that district, between the 1st January, 1904, and the 28th February, 1905, 230 summonses were taken out by the Metropolitan Police against drivers for failing to produce their licences, and these resulted in 216 convictions. The hon. Member will hardly expect me to issue instructions to the police which would be in contravention of the plain words of Section 3 of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, which makes it an offence to fail to produce the licence on the demand of a constable.

  Condition of Roads in Regent's Park.
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the Office of Works has been called to the unsatisfactory state of the roads in Regent's Park, the roughness of whose surface has been long complained of by cyclists and by persons driving in the park; and whether steps will be forthwith taken to bring them into a better condition.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The state of these roads has been engaging the attention of the First Commissioner for some time past. He hopes to be able to effect some improvement.

  Adoption of Recommendations of the Bradford Committee's Report.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet formulated any definite scheme to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Bradford Report; and, if so, will he state the particulars or say when they will be furnished to the House.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Memorandum which is in the hands of hon. Members to-day gives the desired particulars.

  Electro Peat-Coal Manufacture.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have appointed an expert to inquire into
  1706
  and report upon the electro peat-coal manufacture; and whether it can be successfully carried out in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department have inquired into certain processes for the manufacture of peat fuel by electricity, but, in the absence of information as to the particular process referred to in the Question, they are not prepared to express any opinion as to whether it could be successfully carried out in Ireland.

  Transit in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what the Government propose doing to carry into effect the Resolution recently unanimously passed by the House to amend, modify, and cheapen transit conditions in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the Resolution, and I am unable to give an undertaking that the Government will introduce such legislation.

  Beet Sugar Cultivation and Manufacture in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the results accruing to German agriculturists from the cultivation of sugar beet, he will advise the Department of Agriculture to establish an experimental farm for the purpose of testing beet sugar culture and manufacture in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to this Question is in the negative, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 23rd instant.†

  Mountmellick Petty Sessions—Town Com missioners and Fines for Drunkenness.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what portion of the fines for offences of drunkenness imposed at petty sessions, Mountmelliok, go to the Town Commissioners; and whether he will instruct the police to prosecute all charges of drunkenness
  †See page 940.

  1707
  committed within the township in the town Court instead of at petty sessions.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the case of fines imposed at petty sessions for drunkenness committed within the town one-half of the penalty goes to the Town Commissioners and the other half to the police. The police, however, prosecute at the town Court in all cases of offences of drunkenness committed by residents of the town, in which case the entire penalty goes to the Commissioners, and they prosecute at petty sessions in those cases only in which the offender resides outside the town or his residence is not known. This arrangement, which has been in operation for the past twenty years, is regarded as equitable, in view of the concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the offence of drunkenness which exists between the town Court and petty sessions Court.

  Case of Police v. John Munnelly.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the minute made by the magistrates at Belmullet Petty Sessions on February 27th, recording their decision in the case of the Police v. John Munnelly, and in the case of John Munnelly v. the Police.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In each of the three cases referred to in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 27th instant,† the order of the magistrates, as recorded in the Order Book, is "Dismissed on merits." In a fourth case, in which the police prosecuted Mr. Munnelly for using threatening language to one Michael Maguire, the order, similarly recorded, is "Munnelly ordered to enter into recognisances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for twelve months, himself in £20 (Twenty pounds)."

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on the Coyne Estate, Belmullet.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any communication from the evicted tenants on the Coyne Estate, Belmullet Union, county Mayo,
  †See page 1182.
  1708
  on the subject of their reinstatement on the purchase of the estate; and whether the Commissioners have taken any steps to ascertain if the landlord is willing to sell; if not, whether they propose to do so in order that these evicted tenants may be restored to their former holdings or to new and enlarged holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners do not propose to take any special steps with respect to this estate, which has not yet been brought before them for sale, but the applications of the evicted tenants will not be lost sight of, and will be duly considered when a suitable opportunity presents itself.

  Irish Department of Agriculture—Un expended Balances.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to what funds, being the total amounts unexpended of their several annual grants since 1900, is the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland at present entitled.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is assumed that this Question relates to the Department's endowment fund which, however, is made up of capital sums as well as of annual receipts under Section 15 of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899. The unexpended balances of the Department's annual income at present amount to, approximately, £177,000, of which £115,000 is already earmarked for technical instruction in county boroughs and county and urban districts, for sea fisheries, and for buildings at the Royal Veterinary College and at the Munster Institute, in accordance with Section 16 of the Act.

  Appointment of Manager of Lislea No. 1 National School.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what were the local differences which led the National Board to refuse to appoint a local manager, as requested in the memorial of the parents of children attending the Lislea No. 1 National School, county Armagh, instead of the

  1709
  present temporary manager, who resides twenty miles distant from the school; and whether he is aware that the lessee of the school is Mr. R. R. Murphy, J.P.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The local difference referred to was a difference of opinion as to the most fitting appointment to be made. No memorial was received from the parents of the children until after the appointment of the present temporary manager, and the Commissioners saw no sufficient reason to vary that appointment. The case will come up for review within the next three months. Mr. R. R. Murphy is not the lessee of the school. The Commissioners, in whom the school is vested, are themselves the lessees.

  Sale of Soldiers' Effects— Amount Realised since South African War.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual amount realised since the outbreak of the South African War from the sale of soldiers' effects under the Regimental Debts Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The amounts realised by the sale of soldiers' kits, etc., are not recorded separately from other credits due to their estates, and could not be ascertained without examining each account; this would involve an amount of labour which cannot be undertaken.

  Army Boot Contracts—Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a strike is in progress of boot and shoe operatives employed by Government contractors in Raunds in consequence of the employers' violation of the Fair Wages Clause governing contracts; and if he will inquire the cause and insist upon the Fair Wages Clause being observed in all contracts for boots for the use of His Majesty's Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am aware of a strike amongst some of the workpeople at Raunds. I do not understand that the strike is in consequence of any violation of the Wages Clause of the War Department
  1710
  contracts. I understand that the strike is caused by the refusal of certain manufacturers to adopt a schedule of prices which has been agreed to by some other manufacturers. Every endeavour is made to secure the strict observance of the Wages Clause in all War Department contracts. If and when I have reason to believe that the wages being paid are not those generally current in the district (as required by the Wages Clause), I will, in this as in all other cases, cause an inquiry to be instituted at once.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the statement of wages to be paid for Army boot work under Government contracts agreed on in June, 1904, at a meeting of Army contractors and workmen's representatives, signed in September, 1904, by the repressntatives on both sides, and accepted by the War Office at a deputation on 17th November as evidence of the current scale of wages, has been set aside by several contractors who have tendered for, and obtained, contracts, and are offering the work at prices lower than those agreed to, and even below those previously paid; and what steps he proposes to take to secure that the Fair or Current Wage Clause of Government contracts shall be observed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A statement was agreed to by certain of the contractors and signed by their representatives. It did not represent the whole of the contractors in the district, and it was afterwards partially repudiated. It was never accepted by this Department as a statement of wages to be paid. It was merely regarded as some evidence of a desire to arrive at a uniform scale. This was made quite clear at the time to the deputation. If, and when, the Department has reason to believe that the Wage Clause of War Department contracts is being infringed, steps will at once be taken to secure its due observance.

  Expenditure under the Military Works Acts.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War

  1711
  what is the amount spent under the Military Works Acts during the current year; and what is the estimated amount to be spent under these Acts for the ensuing year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1905, will amount to about £3,370,000. The expenditure to be incurred in 1905–6 is still under consideration.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Engineering Department—Enlist ment of Youths.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty authorities are now endeavouring to procure the services of boys and youths under eighteen who were formerly only enlisted as bluejackets for the engineering department of the Royal Navy; if so will those boys and youths be subject, as in the case of boys and youths who enlist as bluejackets in the Royal Navy, to floggings, according to the King's Regulations, and to canings for trivial offences, such punishments to be inflicted by the ship's police and in the presence of all the boys on board ship; and, if so, will the boys and youths thus invited to enlist and their parents and guardians be apprised of the conditions of service in the Royal Navy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): Boys are being entered for training for the artificer branch of the Royal Navy. They are subject to the general rules as regards discipline in force in the Royal Navy. The recruiting pamphlet states the general conditions of service, including the liability referred to in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Now I want to put this plain Question. Are these boys subject to flogging with the birch or cane as in the case of ordinary bluejackets, and is that fact made perfectly well known to parents before the boys
  1712
  are allowed to enter the engineering department? I want to advertise this.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman has already accomplished that, but it has not affected recruiting for the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL MR. SWIFT MACNEILL rose to put a further Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member announced that he wanted to advertise something. This is not the time or place for that.

  Vegetable Rations—The National Antarctic Expedition.
  SIR BRAMPTON GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the National Antarctic Expedition was supplied with Maconochie's vegetable rations; whether these rations, or the greater part of them, proved to be unfit for consumption; and whether the crew of the "Discovery" were in danger of an outbreak of scurvy from want of vegetables.
  MR. PRETYMAN: No rations were supplied by the Admiralty to the "Discovery." Some of the rations purchased by the Admiralty for the "Terra Nova" Relief Expedition were supplied by Messrs. Maconochie. But as regards that ship, there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: As this question affects me personally, may I be allowed to make a statement to the House. No meat and vegetable rations similar to those supplied to South Africa were supplied to the "Discovery." The company did supply a quantity of general stores. The balance not consumed arrived in London in perfect order, and was passed by the Medical Officer of Health. Samples have been exhibited at 165, Queen Victoria Street, for many weeks past, and the bulk may be seen by the hon. Member if he wishes. Independent expert declarations have been received by the company proving the high quality of the goods. No complaint has been received. The whole of the books connected with these

  1713
  particular transactions are open to the inspection of the hon. Member, and every assistance and information will be given to him.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Order, order! This is not a personal explanation.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: I wish to point out that this persistent system of pursuing a firm—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Order, order! Sit down.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to leave me to take care of the order of the House. The hon. Member is now going beyond a personal explanation. If he is not satisfied with the very complete Answer given to the Question, he may add anything relating to the Answer to the Question, but he is going beyond that.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: I fully appreciate the concession made to me, and will only say that I am as anxious as hon. Members for an early discussion, and shall be only too glad if it comes speedily.

  Admiralty Surgeon at Belmullet.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the grounds on which the application of Dr. MacHale, medical officer of Belmullet district, for the appointment of surgeon to the Admiralty in that place, was rejected, seeing that for fifty years the position was held by Dr. MacHale's predecessors as local medical officer; if he will state why, contrary to invariable practice, a doctor living in another part of the country was appointed to the vacancy; and if he will also state the fees now being paid to this doctor and the fees paid annually for the previous ten years; the number of coastguards to be attended; and whether, before appointing the present surgeon, the Admiralty made any effort to have the work done for less than what they are now paying.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The Admiralty did not consider that Dr. MacHale was the most suitable gentleman for the post,
  1714
  and it has never been the practice to appoint a man simply because his predecessor held the appointment of surgeon and agent. The present holder of the appointment is paid 10s. a visit. Previously the ordinary surgeon and agent's fees of 2s. 6d. per visit were allowed. It is not possible to state the precise amount paid in fees annually during the previous ten years without an elaborate investigation of records, which would involve considerable clerical labour and time. The number of coastguards to be attended at the five stations under the surgeon and agent's charge is thirty. The reply to the last part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  The New Rifle—Re-arming the Infantry.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the new pattern rifle is to be issued to mounted troops only, he can state what steps are being taken with reference to the re-armament of the infantry.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No steps are at present being taken to re-arm the infantry in the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

  Sale of Military Buildings—Comptroller- General's Inquiries.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what replies, if any, have been furnished to the queries of the Comptroller-General respecting sale of buildings and other matters referred to on pages 21and 22, Military Works Account, 1903–1904.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In three cases replies have been sent in accordance with the requirements of the Auditor-General. In a fourth case the reply has been followed by a further query, which is now being dealt with. Replies to the remaining queries await the result of communications with South Africa.

  German Emperor's Visit to Gibraltar.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the proposed visit of the Emperor of Germany and his

  1715
  staff to Gibraltar, only those parts of the fortress will be shown which are open to British subjects; and whether the same rules as to photographing the fortress or any parts of it will also be upheld which are rigidly enforced on British subjects.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: Subject to the Regulations contained in Appendix V. of the King's Regulations, the responsibility rests with the General Officer Commanding concerned, with whose discretion it is not proposed in any way to interfere.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Am I to understand that greater facilities are to be given to an Emperor who is building a fleet that may be used against us than are given to loyal subjects of His Majesty?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given.

  Employment of Colonial Troops— Allocation of Charges.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cost of the Colonial troops, raised in South Africa for the defence of their own country, was borne by the Imperial Treasury; whether the normal expenses of the King's African Rifles, employed in Somaliland, were defrayed from the fund of the several Protectorates which were not concerned with the expedition on which their troops served; and what is the reason for the difference in policy in these two cases.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The cost of the Colonial troops, specially raised for the war, was borne by Imperial funds up to 31st October, 1901; after that date it was borne by Colonial funds. The normal cost of such colonial troops as existed before the war was borne by Colonial funds throughout, so long as the troops were employed within the borders of the colony. The normal cost of the King's African Rifles employed in Somaliland was borne by the funds of the Protectorates to which the several contingents belonged, except that of the 6th battalion, which was borne by the funds of the Somaliland Protectorate.
  1716
  As the Protectorates are not self-supporting, the ultimate incidence of the whole cost of the Somaliland operations was necessarily upon Imperial funds.

  Salisbury Plain Works.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the total expenditure on buildings and all other works on Salisbury Plain since the land on which they stand was purchased by the War Office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The capital expenditure is about £1,400,000.

  India—The Plague Inquiry.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of state for India whether, in connection with the scientific expedition to be sent out to India to investigate the origin and causes of plague, the co-operation of those in the areas affected possessing a knowledge of the difficulties of the problem from an Indian standpoint will be sought; and whether he will consider the desirability of adding to the Committee an Indian member with special experience of plague.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the object and scope of the inquiry. The administrative aspects of plague were exhaustively dealt with by Sir Thomas Fraser's Commission of 1898–9, and the practical difficulties of combating the disease are familiar to the Indian Government and its officers. The present investigation will be confined to purely scientific problems, in the hope that, if these are solved, advance will be made in the practical treatment of the disease. The composition of the expedition has been settled on the advice of the two scientific societies which have undertaken to supervise the inquiry, and I do not propose to add another investigator to those already selected. The expedition will work in the plague-affected areas, and will naturally avail itself of local knowledge and co-operation in respect of matters within the scope of the inquiry.

  Public-House Licence Duties.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount likely to be derived from the duty on publicans' licences in the current year; whether he is aware that the Treasury has estimated that the imposition of an ad valorem duty on all licensed houses equal to that now imposed upon the smallest houses would produce a revenue of £3,500,000 per annum; and whether, before asking the House to continue existing taxes on necessaries, he will consider the propriety of increasing these duties by making all houses pay at the rate now paid for the smallest houses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The estimate of the amount likely to be derived from the duty on publicans' licences in the current year was about £1,750,000. The second paragraph of the Question is founded on a misapprehension of an Answer which I gave to the hon. Member last year.† I then stated that it was roughly estimated that the total annual value of public-houses, exclusive of hotels, in England and Wales, was about £7,000,000, and that 50 per cent, of £7,000,000 would amount to £3,500,000. This is a simple arithmetical fact, but it by no means follows that this amount of revenue could be obtained by imposing a 50 per cent, ad valorem licence duty on all such houses. Such a tax would, I conceive, certainly extinguish many of the houses, and no estimate has been made by the Treasury of the effect of its imposition on the total annual value of all public-houses.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of increasing the duties as suggested before he brings in his next Budget.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I consider all the suggestions made to me, but I cannot say that I derive great advantage from many of them.

  Arrests on Insufficient Grounds.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 1562.
  1718
  Home Department whether, in view of the number of cases that have recently been brought to his notice of persons being imprisoned against whom no charge was ultimately brought forward or substantiated, and of the increasing difficulty for guilty persons to make good their escape, he can see his way to issue general orders to the police to adopt a system of surveillance while inquiries are being made, and to refrain from indiscriminate arrests until some charge has been made good on reliable evidence.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's); The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that many cases have recently been brought to my notice in which persons have been apprehended on insufficient grounds. On the contrary, considering that the annual number of apprehensions in England and Wales exceeds 350,000, the number of complaints I receive alleging arrest on insufficient grounds is extraordinarily small, and affords a striking testimony to the care and discretion with which the police exercise the powers which the law confers on them. A system of surveillance such as the hon. Member suggests would be quite impracticable.
  MR. LOUGH: But I know of cases that have been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: It is true that the hon. Member has written to me about four cases. Two were Irish—Irish cases are not dealt with by me, but by the Irish Government. One (the Harrods Stores Case) was that of Bradley and Gapp, who got heavy damages from the Stores, and this shows whose fault the arrest was. The other was the Beck case. In this Beck was given in charge by a woman, and the officer could not have refused to take him into custody.

  Home Office and Petitions for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether in framing new

  1719
  regulations for the Criminal Prosecutions and the Criminal Appeals Departments of the Home Office, as recommended by the Beck Committee of Inquiry, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the practice of receiving secret and so-called confidential information adverse to the persons charged or convicted, and of withholding such information from the persons concerned.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: There is no Criminal Prosecutions Department or Criminal Appeals Department in the Home Office. Those prosecutions which are undertaken on behalf of the Government are conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and criminal appeals, where the right of appeal exists, are matters for the Courts of Law. The hon. Member no doubt refers to the Department of the Home Office which has to deal with petitions which are addressed to the Secretary of State praying for the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in criminal cases. I can only say that it is essential that, in considering such petitions, I should be able to communicate confidentially with Judges, magistrates, and the police. If I could not do so, the number of cases in which I can now advise the exercise of the Prerogative would be seriously restricted.
  MR. LOUGH: Have the recommendations of the Committee been carried out.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, all the recommendations made by the Master of Rolls Committee have been carried out, or are on the eve of being earned out—except one, the reason for which was fully explained to the House.

  Swine Fever in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether, in view of the returns of alleged swine fever in Ireland during the past seven weeks, he will remove the restrictions at present in force against the landing of Irish pigs in England.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): My Answer
  1720
  must be in the negative, for the reasons which I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County on the 20th ult†. As I then explained, the recent action of the Board was founded upon the fact that in Ireland no precautionary measures are taken against the movement of diseased swine, or swine which may have been exposed to infection, from one part of Ireland to another, and the fact that five outbreaks of the disease have been reported during the present year shows that there would still be a danger of its introduction into Great Britain if the restrictions were withdrawn.

  Building By-laws in Rural Districts.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the fact that the building by-laws are more stringent in certain rural districts than in the county of London, he will take steps to compel their withdrawal, and issue practically uniform reasonable building regulations.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The subject of building by-laws in rural districts is receiving my attention; but I am not empowered to compel the withdrawal of existing by-laws or to issue building regulations in their place.

  Underfed School Children.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Loc I Government Board whether, acting on the powers conferred upon his Department by Section 10 of the Act 42 and 43 Vic., c. 54, he will recommend that boards of guardians be authorised to vote the necessary funds to enable education authorities to undertake, subject to proper safeguards, the provision of meals to destitute children.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am advised that boards of guardians would not be empowered by the section mentioned by this hon. Member to give effect to the arrangement to which he refers.
  † See (4) Debates, exli., 585.
  *MK. KEIR HARDIE: I will call attention to this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  Irish National Holiday—Railway Traffic Limitations.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, seeing that an Act of Parliament has been passed making March 17th a national holiday, which legalises the closing of banks and other public institutions in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of making an Order confining railway traffic in that country to the limits beyond which they do not go on Good Friday and Christmas Day in each year.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): The Board of Trade have no power to make such an Order.

  Annunciators in the Dining-Rooms and Tea-Rooms of the House of Commons.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to furnish the amount of money requisite for the erection of annunciators in the dining-rooms and tea-rooms.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg also to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will have annunciators installed in the dining-rooms and tea-rooms for the convenience of Members.
  LORD BALCARRES: No provision has been made in the Estimates for this service, and the First Commissioner is not therefore prepared to install annunciators in the rooms in question during the year 1905–6. The suggestion of the hon. Member will be favourably considered in framing the Estimates for 1906–7.

  Admiralty Courtyard, Whitehall.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is yet able to make any announcement as to the removal of the plaster and
  1722
  wooden panelling placed at the back of the colonnade on the Whitehall front of the courtyard of the Admiralty.
  LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner has personally examined the screen, and is quite willing to remove the sliding wooden doors referred to, but doubts the advantage of doing so. The screen wall at the back of the colonnade is built of stone repaired with plaster and painted; it forms an integral part of the structure designed by Robert Adam, and cannot be removed.

  Motor Engines for Fishing Boats.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will endeavour to arrange that the operation of fixing a trial motor engine into a fishing boat at Aberdeen will take place during the Easter holidays, so that Members interested may be able to be present.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): I am not able to promise that a vessel equipped with motor engines will be ready for inspection by the time mentioned by the hon. Member, but matters are being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

  Motor Traffic —Ayrshire County Council Regulations.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if the regulations submitted by the Ayrshire County Council with reference to motor traffic have now been approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Secretary for Scotland hopes to be able to issue this Order in the course of next week.

  Lisbellaw Petty Sessions Appeal.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what official or department is responsible for authorising the statement of a case from the Lisbellaw Petty Sessions, in the matter of Inspector Murnane v. the Justices of Fermanagh, heard recently in the King's Bench, Dublin; whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice, when delivering judgment, stated that the matter before them was in itself of little or no importance; and if he will state

  1723
  the cost incurred by the Grown for witnesses and lawyers in this case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The police were directed by the Executive to apply to have a case seated. I decline to state the names of the several officials before whom the matter came. The point involved in the case was most important, namely, whether, in the case of the sale of drink to a person who was at the time in fact drunk, knowledge of his condition on the part of the vendor was necessary to constitute an offence under the statute. The Court decided, according to the contention of the Crown, that such knowledge was not necessary. What the Chief Justice said was, that "it was really of very little importance what became of the particular case, but that it was of grave importance to the administration of the law that the point should be understood, and that it should be declared that it was not of the essence of the offence that the impeached publican should have knowledge of the state of the man who was alleged to have been drunk." A very grave charge, amounting in effect to collusion and conspiracy, was made against the police by the defendant, supported by the affidavit of the hon. Member, who was one of the presiding justices, and by the affidavits of others. It was therefore necessary to summon these persons to Dublin for examination if required. The Court decided that there was no foundation for this charge. The entire costs incurred in the case amounted to £45 9s.
  MR. JORDAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I refused to sign a case because I thought it was vexatious litigation.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, but unfortunately for the hon. Member the Bench entirely disagreed with him.
  MR. JORDAN: Was I not ready to give evidence, and did they not refuse to call me?
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Gentleman made an affidavit and desired to be cross-examined on it, but it was not thought necessary.
  MR. JORDAN: Did not the magistrates at the rehearing again dismiss the case on its merits?
  MR. ATKINSON: It may be so. If so, we shall probably hear of it again.

  The Kingston Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether any action has been taken by the Estates Commissioners to bring about the reinstatement of Mr. Thomas Kent in the holding on the Kingston Estate, from which he was evicted in 1887, having regard to the fact that the holding is vacant and in the possession of the vendor, and that the sale and purchase of the Kingston Estate is in process of being dealt with by the Commissioners.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Mr. Kent's application for reinstatement will be considered when the estate has been inspected.

  Bangor (County Down) Improvement Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the Bangor (county Down) Improvement Bill, a petition has been presented against the Bill by a landowner of the district, and that such petition has been deposited by Mr. Tighe Macredy, solicitor, Dublin; and whether, seeing that Mr. Macredy is solicitor to the Local Government Board, by which body a report on the Bill must be sent to the Select Committee, he will say whether it is usual for the solicitor to the Local Government Board to act for opponents of a Bill upon which the Board has to advise.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Messrs. Macredy are employed by the Board when they require the services of a solicitor, but are not debarred from taking private practice. The Board have no occasion to employ their solicitors in connection with private Bills, and Messrs. Macredy are therefore not consulted in such matters, nor do they see the Board's reports before they are made public

  Kilrush Harbour Creek.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the creek, Kilrush Harbour, is Crown or Government property; if so, whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests or the Board of Trade Departments have power to transfer ownership or guardianship of the creek; and, if such power be vested in those offices, will they give a transfer of such powers to the Kilrush Urban Council, acting as local authority, for the purpose of making it available as required for commercial purposes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Master of the Rolls has, in the case of Vandeleur v. Glynn, judicially decided that the foreshore in this creek belongs to the plaintiff, Colonel Vandeleur. An appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision is now pending, and until it has been decided the Question cannot be answered.

  Owenmore River Drainage.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the county of Sligo has received no grant under the Marine Works Act, the Government will now consider the advisability of allocating a portion of the balance of £4,000 remaining on foot of the funds provided under The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, for the drainage of the Owenmore River in that county.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The funds provided under The Sea Fisheries Act are expressly limited in their application to the purposes of that Act. These purposes do not include drainage.
  MR. O'DOWD: But will the Government make inquiry with a view to giving some assistance in this matter, seeing that the people have been ruined and are unable to carry out this necessary work?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is impossible to answer a Question of that kind across the floor of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman has any facts to communicate to me, I will consider them.

  Sugar Beetroot Cultivation in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that sugar beetroot can be successfully and profitably grown in Ireland, even on land of inferior quality, the Irish Department of Agriculture will now take some practical steps towards encouraging the cultivation of that crop.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member's attention does not appear to have been directed to my reply to the similar Question put to me on Thursday last† by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division.

  Irish National Education—Effect of Rule 127 (b).
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Rev. M. Keaneny, P.P., of Charlestown, county Mayo, copies of resolutions recently adopted by the clerical managers of national schools in the diocese of Achenry protesting against the issue by the Commissioners of National Education of Rule 127 (b); and whether, in view of the effect of this rule on Irish country school children and of the protests made against it, the rule will be withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The rule has not yet come into operation. I have already stated the reasons for its adoption, and the extent to which the Commissioners have agreed to qualify its application. The rule was made solely in the interests of Irish school children under eight years of age.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: How many assistant teachers will be thrown out of employment by enforcement of this rule?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot answer that Question off-hand. The matter has, however, been carefully considered. The rule is in the interest of school children of a particular age, and the result on the teachers is a totally different question which does not arise here.
  † See page 940.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: But where the boys are removed an assistant teacher will of necessity lose his employment?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously, in the adoption of any rules of this kind, whether in Ireland or in England, there must be some effect on the teacher, but the object is to benefit the children, and I am informed as a matter of fact that no injustice is done by this rule to the teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: If, as I understand, 600 men will be thrown out of employment, after they have given their lives to the service, what is to be done with them?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is a hypothetical Question. First, it will be necessary to ascertain if it is a fact; and, if it be so, then will be the time to consider whether there is any remedy.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the position in regard to the purchase of the Cusack, county Longford, Estate by the Estates Commissioners; whether the negotiations have yet been concluded or not; and, if not, will he urge upon the Commissioners the necessity of closing this matter promptly.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are now about to send an inspector to examine and report upon this estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: When will the inspector go there?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Really, it is impossible for me to answer as to every detail of the work of the Commissioners. The hon. Member may be certain that they will not unduly delay any work they have to perform, but I must leave these things to their discretion.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: There has already been a delay of eighteen months.

  Organisers' Science Classes in County Meath.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many preliminary and Part II. organisers' science classes for national teachers have been held in county Meath, and how many teachers have attended these courses; whether any, and, if so, how many suitable technical schools are available in the county at which the remainder of the teachers can get trained, and at which those who attended the preliminary classes can complete their course, and what provision is made for the training of those for whom no technical schools are available; whether he can state the number of convents in Ireland in which preliminary science courses have been held, and what provision is made by the Commissioners of National Education to enable the nuns who attended the preliminary courses to complete their course; and whether any arrangements can be made for the training of nuns who have received no science instruction.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Part I. classes, in elementary science have been held at two places in the county, and attended by fifty-nine teachers. The head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained for training teachers in science. Ninety classes have been held in convent schools, and the services of a lady assistant organiser are available for this and similar work in future. I am making inquiry as to the remaining point raised in the Question, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Agricultural Instructors in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the framing of the rule by the Agricultural Department excluding the people of a county from appointments as instructors in their own county, the appointment for Donegal of Mr. J. D. Cassidy, a native of the county, with a permanent residence therein, as an instructor in bee-keeping was sanctioned by the Department; why may not the departure from the rule which has been sanctioned in this case be sanctioned in

  1729
  other cases; and whether, having regard to the deadlock in the administration of agricultural schemes in Donegal and the discontent produced by this rule, he will advise its withdrawal.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, but the rule referred to was not made applicable to the bee-keeping scheme, as the instructor is employed for a short time only at two seasons of the year. It is not intended to modify the rule.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the foundation of the rule? Why should people with a special knowledge of the county be boycotted?
  MR. WALTER LONG: There is no justification for a charge of boycotting. I am informed that experience led those responsible to the conclusion that it was in the interest of the educated that the instructors should be chosen from another county. That practice has been adopted, theeffects of it are being carefully watched, and I am assured that those responsible attach great importance to it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is Sir Horace Plunkett responsible for this?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir, I am responsible.
  MR. HAYDEN: Where does the Department get its knowledge as to the county from which these people come, seeing that they are not able to ascertain the nationality of other public officials?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I imagine that the ordinary sources of information are open to them.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and it cannot now be argued by means of further Questions and Answers. I hope hon. Members will have some regard to the claims of others who have Questions on the Paper.

  Irish Criminal Procedure—Revision of Sentences.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1730
  of Ireland what is the practice with reference to the remission of sentences and the consideration of the propriety of the exercise by the Lord-Lieutenant of the Prerogative of Pardon in Ireland; are there, as in England, periodic reconsiderations of the sentences passed on prisoners; is there, as in England, any, and, if so, what staff of officials for the preliminary stages of this work; and, if so, what has been their training; in what respects does the Irish system differ from the Home Office system with respect to the remission of sentences and the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardon.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The remission of sentences, and the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardon in Ireland is vested in the Lord-Lieutenant. There are in Ireland, as in England, periodical reconsiderations of the sentences of all long-sentenced prisoners, in addition to the consideration of such cases on memorial. The preliminary stages of this work are carried out in the Chief Secretary's office, where all the available information is collected and summarised. It is not known that any substantial difference exists between the Irish and the English practices, but the former has remained unchanged for very many years.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL; Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor state that there was no periodical revision?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to refer to a previous Answer.
  MR. SAWIFT MACNEILL: But they are so contradictory.

  Police Constable Reddy, of Maryborough.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a complaint has been, received by District-Inspector Redmond, Maryborough, that on the evening of the 6th March Constable Reddy, without any provocation, used insulting expressions in the public street to respectable

  1731
  residents of the town; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Inspector-General is inquiring into this matter.

  Longford Extra Police Force.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in October, 1902, a force of police was requisitioned for a prosecution, for which a sum of £5 6s. 7d. extra police charge was claimed, and that although this sum was charged in respect of an offence arising out of transactions in all parts of the county of Longford the sum itself was charged solely against the urban district of Longford; and whether, seeing that, notwithstanding the fact that the county council of Longford agreed to have it levied as a county-at-large charge, it is still charged against the urban district, will he direct that the wishes of the county council to have it levied as a county-at-large charge will be now given effect to.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The additional police were employed on the occasion mentioned in the town of Longford, and the charge in respect of their cost was properly levied on the urban district. This is in accordance with practice, and it is not proposed to re-open the matter, as suggested.

  Colonel King-Harman's Longford Estate.
  MR. J. P. FAREELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Colonel W. H. King-Harman, of Newcastle, county Longford, has recently sold through the Estates Commission an evicted tenant's farm, at Keel, formerly in possession of Patrick Fox, who is now living in a labourer's cottage, to his own son, Captain A. W. King-Harman: whether this arrangement is yet before the Estates Commissioners or not; and, if so, will they sanction a sale of this kind in view of the purposes of the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion, and having made due inquiry, consider it is more to the advantage
  1732
  of the evicted tenant's family that the larger portion of the holding should be sold to the son of Patrick Fox. The remainder of the holding will be retained by Colonel King-Harman.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the King-Harman Estate in south Longford, in which the farm of Creagh, formerly occupied by Mr. Robert Armstrong, has been sold to a bailiff named Jones; whether he is aware that since his occupancy of this farm Jones has allowed the mansion and out-offices on it to fall into total ruin: and if, in these circumstances, this transaction will be sanctioned?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The sale in this case was completed on 6th October last.

  Evicted Tenants in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken to provide untenanted lands in county Longford for the benefit of the evicted tenants there, eighty-six of whose applications are on file with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will he indicate the nature of the steps being taken to provide homes for these people under the Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the purchase of two estates are at present pending before the Commissioners. In the event of any untenanted lands being distributed in the county, the claims of evicted tenants will be considered.

  Irish National School Building Plans.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any alteration has yet been agreed on in Plan No. VI. A for the building of national schools in Ireland; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the delay in extending the scope of this plan, the building of national schools in Ireland has been practically at a standstill for the past three years; and, if so, will he urge upon

  1733
  the Treasury the necessity for expediting this change.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The particular plan cannot be dealt with apart from the question of the revision of the plans and estimates generally. It is a large question, but, as I stated on 22nd February†, I will endeavour to expedite the settlement of it. It is not the case that the building of national schools in Ireland has been practically at a standstill for the past three years.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately when this matter will be settled?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I cannot.

  Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state whether any, and, if so, what obligations are imposed on the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees with regard to the publication and audit of their accounts; and whether these obligations have been discharged.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am advised that there is no statutory obligation on the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees to publish and audit their accounts. If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question I shall be glad to furnish him with information as to the Act under which the trustees were created.

  Portrush Harbour.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any representations have been made to the Board of Works with reference to Port-rush Harbour, county Antrim; whether any representations have been made to the Public Works Loan Board; and whether the Board of Works has any, and, if so, what, jurisdiction over the Public Works Loan Board.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works have received no representations
  † See (4) Debates, exli.; 903.
  1734
  on the subject of Portrush Harbour. I learn that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are now in communication with the Portrush Harbour Company. The Public Works Loan Board is an absolutely independent body. May I add that when I answered a Question on this matter the other day I was not aware that any representations had been made to the Public Works Loan Board, nor was I aware a report had appeared in an Irish paper that I was present at the deputation.

  Defence of the Empire.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the change of policy recently announced as to secondary naval bases and military garrisons at strategic points of the Empire, on which money has lately been spent out of Military and Naval Loans Acts, he will give the House an early opportunity for the consideration of the question, other than that afforded by Estimates, upon which a portion only of the matter could be discussed; whether any intended military or naval loan proposals will be introduced early in the session; and when it may be possible to propose the Treasury Vote containing Item E, on which such matters could be raised.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the right hon. Baronet is under some misconception in regard to the places where money has been expended, and which come under the new scheme. If he will ask me a further Question I shall be glad to give him any information in order that he may be prepared to deal with the subject when we come to discuss Vote E. I shall be glad to put that Vote down at any time the House desires. I think it is an important subject, but it cannot be dealt with until we get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.

  The Aliens Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, now that financial

  1735
  business has been for the present disposed of, the Aliens Bill may be introduced on Monday and its stages advanced as rapidly as possible.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a date, but I am very anxious to proceed as fast as possible with the Bill.

  Sea Encroachment on the English Coast.
  COLONEL LUCAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will agree to a Royal Commission to inquire into the damage to the coast of Great Britain caused by the encroachment of the sea, and to suggest the best course to follow to reduce such damage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As at present advised. I am not in a position to promise my hon. friend the Commission he desires. That Answer also applies to the Question of the hon. Member for Thanet.

  Appended is the Question referred to—
  MR. MARKS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps he is taking or proposes to take with reference to the representations that have been made to the Board of Trade on the subject of coast erosion; and whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry as to the steps that may be taken, so far as possible, to prevent such erosion.

  The Unemployed.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately when the Bill dealing with the unemployed, promised, in the King's Speech, is likely to be introduced.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: At the same time, I may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to introduce the Bill, promised in His Majesty's Speech, providing for the establishment of authorities to deal with the question of the unemployed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unless the House will consent to the introduction of the Bill dealing with the unemployed,
  1736
  promised in the King's Speech, under the Ten Minutes Rule, I do not think there will be time for it before Easter. It is a measure that the Government are most anxious to proceed with.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: Cannot the same pledge be given for this Bill as for the Aliens Bill—that it shall be pressed on as rapidly as possible?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a measure which the Government is most anxious, to proceed with.
  MR. CROOKS: Will there be a reasonable time-limit put on the everlasting anxiety of boards of guardians? The uncertainty is simply wearing people out.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the Bill deal with the case of Ireland's unemployed?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the Gentlemen who catechise me think the Bill ought to be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. That course would greatly facilitate business.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: We shall be prepared to consider that suggestion.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: Does the Prime Minister consider the Aliens Bill to be more important than the Unemployed Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to put a Question of that nature.

  Scottish Bills.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Congested Districts Board Amendment Bill and the Whale Fisheries Bill will be brought forward for Second Reading.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no statement to make as to these Bills.

  The Colonies and Fiscal Reform.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury

  1737
  whether any negotiations as to colonial preference or retaliation took place between the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Prime Ministers before the Coronation Conference of 1902; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were informal pourparlers upon the subject of colonial preference. But no record was kept, and therefore no record remains. There is no correspondence in existence which can be published.

  Motions for Adjournment.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to proceed with the Motion standing in his name respecting debate on Motions for Adjournment at Easter or Whitsuntide.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLalso had the following Question on the Paper—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will fix a day before Easter for the discussion of the proposed Amendments to the rule with reference to Motions for the Adjournment of the House and the limitation of discussion in debate on such Motions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will have this Resolution moved some night after twelve o'clock if the House will accept it without discussion. I cannot find time before Easter, and I do not know whether I can find time after Easter for a discussion on the Resolution in view of the pressure of Government business. The Resolution was put down in deference to an appeal from hon. Gentlemen who are apparently discontented with my reply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As one of those who have pressed for action in this matter, I do not remember that I ever said I would accept anything that the Government proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I make no complaint, but do not let hon. Members complain of me. That is all I ask.

  Underfed School Children.
  MR. ARTHURHENDERSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant facilities for the passage into law, this session, of a short measure empowering educational authorities to provide meals for destitute children.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: May I ask whether, if those facilities are given, they will be granted for the first Bill introduced on the subject—namely, the Bill of the hon. Member for Hoxton.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a statement made by the President of the Local Government Board that boards of guardians have no legal power to deal with this pressing matter in any way whatever, and that neither the local education authorities nor—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper should first be answered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be proper even to suggest that we should take any steps until we get the Report of this Committee now sitting and inquiring into the facts.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Now may I ask if the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland recommended in 1903 that there should be legislation
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, which has been fully answered.

  Scottish Church Dispute.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the Royal Commission on the affairs of the United Free Church and Free Church of Scotland has been received; whether he is aware of the anxiety in the public mind upon the subject and the general desire; to put an end to the uncertainties and litigation with regard to the numerous church fabrics and properties affected; and whether he can accordingly see his

  1739
  way to expedite the printing and issue of the Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am desirous of having this Report in my own possession and in the possession of the whole House. Of course, it does not rest with me to take any steps in the matter, but I am sure the Commissioners will do all they can to hasten the proceedings. Every effort will be made to expedite the printing of the Report.
  MR. FINDLAY: Cannot some power intervene to stop the game of grab now being carried on by the Free Church—in the name of the law—until Parliament is able to deal with the subject?
  [No Answer was returned].

  Tariffs and Shipping Debate.
  MR. LOUGH: I wish to ask if the Prime Minister proposes to take any notice of the Resolution of the House passed unanimously last night.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That Question can be answered if it is put on the Paper. It can scarcely be treated as urgent within the meaning of the Standing Order.
  MR. LOUGH: It is generally regarded as urgent.

  UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
  It being now Five minutes to Three o'clock, seventeen starred Questions, including those addressed to the Colonial Secretary, remained unanswered.
  *MR. McCRAEasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the desirability of rearranging the order of Questions. This was the second occasion this week on which Questions to the Colonial Secretary had been put at the end of a long list, and there had been no opportunity of asking them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to arrange the Questions to meet the convenience of the House. Last session a complaint was properly made that Questions addressed to myself were sometimes
  1740
  cut out. I think that the arrangement which has now been made, by which those Questions always come on, is for the general convenience. Recently a request was made to me that while the Army debates were going on the Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War should come on at a time when they could be answered orally, and I did my best to see that arrangement was carried out. Now hon. Gentlemen complain that the Colonial Secretary, who used to occupy the position now given to the Secretary of State for War, should be put back in his place. It is difficult to frame a scheme to meet everybody's wishes. On certain days we might have the Irish Questions put last.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Leave them out altogether. Tell us to stand aside.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They will all be answered on the Paper. The suggestion made to me will be considered. But it is obviously impossible, if as many Questions are put down as are at present being put down and as many supplementary Questions are asked, that every Question can be answered orally.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND:
  Extend the time.
  MR. MACVEAGHasked whether the Prime Minister was not invading the province of Mr. Speaker. Were they to understand that the Government arranged the order of Questions?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The matter is arranged amongst the Ministers themselves, but if any complaint about it is brought to my notice I have authority over the list.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill:—Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. James Henry Campbell, Mr. Long, Mr. Field, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Harrington,

  1741
  Mr. Hayden, Mr. Bond, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Thomas Herbert Robertson, Mr. Thomas Lorimer Corbett, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Lonsdale.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from serving on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Trades Unions and Trade Disputes Bill:—Mr. Attorney-General.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SCOTTISH TRAW LERS) BILL.
  "To apply sections four hundred and thirteen to four hundred and sixteen of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to Scotland," presented by the Lord-Advocate; supported by Mr. Bonar Law; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, as to the style and title of the Commissioners, the execution of deeds by them, and the application of the Fund constituted by the said Act, "presented by the Lord-Advocate; supported by Mr. Cochrane; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the hearing by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction of charges and applications relating to Children," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Sir John Gorst, Mr. Samuel Smith, Lord Edmund Talbot, and Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDcomplained that the House of Commons was unable to discuss the working of the great Land Act of 1903 owing to the fact that no information had been given as to its work Last year they were told, not unnaturally, that the time had been so short that no real information could be given on which to found criticism, but now the Act had been in operation a year and a-half and it was not, he submitted, unreasonable to ask the Government to I put them in the position of being able to discuss the matter. Already this session the matter had been raised on three or four occasions, but not once had they had any effective debate whatever. All these debates had been of a most ineffective and useless character, because they had not in their hands any adequate information as to how the Act was working. He did not make any complaint, of course, against the present Chief Secretary, who manifestly was not responsible, nor had he any desire to blame the other members of the Irish Government; but the position in which they found themselves was most improper and ridiculous. The House of Commons ought to be in possession of the facts which would enable it to discuss the question, and, in view of the possibility that the session might come to an early end, it was most important that this should be done without delay. All they had got at present was a certain list of figures giving the number of applications for sale, the prices paid, and so forth; but the preparation of this list would take more time than the preparation of a general Report, so that it could not be on account of want of time that they were left in ignorance of the principles on which the Act was worked, as to the directions in which the Commissioners were working, and as to why, in the Commissioners' views, the Act was not working satisfactorily in certain portions. He urged most strongly on the Chief Secretary, now that he had come to the fulfilment of his

  1743
  duties, that he should inquire into the matter and find out why the delay had taken place; and asked that before the end of the Easter holidays they should be supplied, first with the general Report of the Estates Commissioners, giving not only the figures, the amount of money, and so forth, but their comments on the working of the Act and their explanations of the principles on which they were working; and, secondly, with the regulations and instructions about which there had been a good deal of mystery and discussion, and which the Chief Secretary promised—it was one of his first acts—should be prepared and published in a simple manner as soon as possible. It was absolutely essential they should have these materials given them, and he earnestly pressed upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of losing no further time. A great deal of mischief had been done by the information having been withheld. He believed there was probably a great deal of misapprehension in both extremes as to the working of the Act; and this was inevitable so long as they were kept in the dark. What interest in the world could be advanced for withholding the information? Surely it was not in the interest of the Government, and it could not be in the interest of the Estates Commissioners. Was it that the staff was insufficient? This great Act had been working a year and a-half, and no Report whatever had been made. It was little short of a scandal, and he urged the Chief Secretary to free himself from any responsibility for it by insisting that the information should be in the hands of hon. Members before the House assembled after Easter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that to his mind the reason they had not had the Report was perfectly plain. Under Section 23 of the Act the Estates Commissioners could only issue a Report on instructions from the Treasury both as to the time of its presentation and its form; and in answer to a Question he had addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury it had been admitted that no representation was made by the Treasury to the Estates Commissioners with regard to the issue of a Report till February 28th. This was the reason they had not had a Report. They had
  1744
  been promised regulations, and these were important, but what was more important was that before they could know what was going on, they ought to have the instructions issued by the Estates Commissioners to their inspectors. The absence of this Report and of any debate in the House of Commons as to the working of the Act were most embarrassing and led to all sorts of mischief in Ireland. It was said that the Act was a failure, but he did not believe it. He thought it had failed in some important particulars, but he did not agree that there had been failure in a general sense. They could not, however, get out the facts until they had not only a full Report, but these regulations and instructions.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,)agreed that until they had the information asked for it was impossible adequately to debate the administration of the Land Act, and this, he also agreed, led to a good deal of misapprehension, for, through ignorance of what was going on, partisans on both sides came to conclusions which he thought were inaccurate. He had only been able to make a partial examination into the subject, but the little he had seen led him to believe that the Act was in no sense a failure, and bethought the information when supplied would substantiate this view. He had nothing to conceal at all. It was true that it was within the province of the Treasury to prescribe the time of the presentation of the Report and, what was much more important, the form the Report should take, but the Treasury, as far as he knew, was only actuated by the desire that the Report should be in accordance with what they believed to be the principle laid down in the Act, and he did not think there had been any delay. He regretted very much the absence of the information, but he would do his utmost to expedite its publication in every possible way. One of the first things he did on succeeding to his present office was to inquire both of the Estates Commissioners and his other advisers in the Department the cause of this delay and to press upon them the very great urgency of bringing the matter to an immediate conclusion.

  1745
  He thought, however, that a year and a-half was too liberal an interpretation of the time the Act had been working.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the late Chief Secretary promised Reports every six months.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not forget, because I am not a war eof it. Proceeding, he said it was conceivable that in passing a great Act of Parliament assurances might be made with confidence that they would be able to be carried out, but which, when it came to administration, they found could not be. This was probably one of the most complicated and difficult Acts that any Government had ever had to administer, and, after all, the Estates Commissioners could not get together the necessary information for their Report until they had been long enough in the saddle to arrange their procedure and arrive at a plan of how their work was to be done. He did not think there had been undue delay on their part. He believed they had now arrived at a time when they would be able soon to proceed to publication, and although he would not promise more than that, he would do everything in his power to secure publication of the Report before the end of the Easter holidays. He thought this result ought to be secured. It was impossible to justify keeping the House out of information essential to a discussion, which it ought to have, and which he desired it should have, because he believed that it would be in the interest not only of those responsible for the passing of the Act, but, what was more important, to the advantage and interest of the whole Irish population that the full power of the Act should be understood, that its method of administration should be understood, and that the relations between the Executive and the Estates Commissioners should be understood.
  There were two sets of regulations, those issued by the executive Government to the Commissioners, and those issued by the Commissioners to their inspectors. The latter were ordered from the printer on March 20th, and he would take care they were laid
  1746
  immediately. He agreed that with regard to the other regulations it was undesirable that there should be any mystery; it was not only undesirable, but also unjust. The Act imposed upon the executive Government the obligation of issuing regulations for the guidance of the Commissioners, and it was obvious that if the action of the Commissioners were to be controlled by regulations issued by the executive Government, in fairness to them and in order that the House and the public might judge as to where responsibility rested, there should be no mystery about it, and that these regulations should be made public as soon as possible. The first thing he did on returning to London was to call for information as to these regulations. He had already considered them, they were now before the Estates Commissioners and the other members of the executive Government, and he had asked that they should be put forward: with, the utmost rapidity, He desired that they should be published as soon as possible, and, if they proved insufficient and required amendments, those amendments should be issued in the same form as the original regulations so that the House would be able to judge of the responsibility of action under them. He shared the view that a full knowledge of the subject was all important if they were to judge of the ultimate success or failure of the Act. He believed it would effect a great agrarian reform and that it would, if justly and wisely administered, bring great blessings of peace on the country as a whole. Therefore, he desired to do everything that could be done to facilitate its smooth and successful working.
  *MR. JOHN CAMPBELLsaid he rose to move the rejection of this Bill in order to call the attention of the House to the condition of the aborigines of Western Australia, as disclosed in the recent Report of the Roth Commission. The state of affairs depicted there was so appalling that no words of his were necessary to enhance it. He should use, therefore, the simplest and most pedestrian of phraseology, and promise that, as far at least as he was concerned, no undue heat would be imported into this discussion. Now, what was it that

  1747
  this Report contained? It indicated, in the first place, that the native population in Western Australia were living in a condition of slavery. He used the word advisedly. The males were compelled to work for the white men from the tenderest years without a penny of wages, and when they were incapacitated by old age or infirmity they were turned adrift remorselessly without the slightest provision being made for them.
  As for the administration of the laws under which they lived it was the worst conceivable. Take the commonest offence with which these poor people were charged—cattle-killing—which constituted 90 per cent, of native offences. When a bullock was reported to have been killed anywhere, what happened was this. The constable went out into the bush with half a dozen police trackers armed with rifles and well equipped with chains and manacles for a purpose which he would explain later on. This force of armed men would surround the black encampment at nightfall and in the morning rouse up the whole assembly male and female. The former were taken into custody as prisoners. The latter were seized as witnesses against their male relatives. Both males and females were impartially put in chains, which were never once removed, day or night, whether travelling overland or wading through rivers, until the trial was finished. On the journey the evidence proved that the unhappy female witnesses—who, on the very face of it were not even accused of any crime—were systematically out-raged by the police and their agents. Worse remained behind. The trial it self was the merest travesty of justice. The prisoners did not know the nature, of the charge which was made against them. They were ignorant of the language even of the tribunal, and to them was given as interpreter the police boy. The latter was very often ignorant of the special dialect of the prisoners, and in any case he was never a safe medium. Through his agency the culprits who were arraigned conjointly in batches were usually prevailed on to enter a plea of guilty—a plea on which, according to the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 1902, any justice was empowered to inflict a sentence of three years
  1748
  hard labour. Consequently, they need not be surprised to hear that for a prisoner to escape was a thing altogether unheard of. In connection with this question it must not be forgotten that it was to the direct pecuniary interest of the police to bring in as many prisoners and witnesses as ever they could; for they were allowed conduct-money at the usual rate of 2s. 5d. per head per day, and as they could subsist the natives for a few pence a day they contrived to make a very handsome profit. And when the trial was over the young women witnesses, instead of being conducted back to their former place of residence, were turned adrift in the streets, the police pocketing the daily capitation grant for the return journey. Even while in gaol the prisoners were kept in irons. There was really no justification for this. All the gaolers confessed the practice to be unauthorised and illegal. The only attempt at palliation was the allegation that if not fettered they would escape. But if this was really true, then obviously the remedy was to build better prisons, the convict labour being ready and quite sufficient for the erection of proper houses of detention.
  He desired to call special attention to the question of the children. The lot of these little creatures was a very sad one indeed. From the earliest age they were forced to labour for employers who gave them nothing in return—neither education nor wages. Was it astonishing that they commonly fell into evil ways—thievery or prostitution? The evidence of all the witnesses went to show that, if the children were to be saved, provision must be made for them in the way of orphanages and industrial schools. The pearl-shell fishery business also required special mention. The boats employed in this industry were for the most part unseaworthy. They were purposely never registered in order to escape inspection under the Merchant Shipping Act. Boys and women were taken aboard in direct contravention of the statute. Liquor and opium were carried without stint, and they were therefore prepared to hear that drunkenness and immorality prevailed all along the coast line.
  And now, to substantiate these charges. He trusted the House, would bear with him if he went briefly through some of the most important evidence contained

  1749
  in the Report under discussion. He would read to the House a few extracts from the Roth Report of December, 1904. Mr. Prinsep, chief protector of aborigines, was asked—
  "Can a contract be legally entered into without your knowledge?—Yes.
  "Can you prevent any Asiatic or European from being an employer under the Act?—No, I cannot.
  "Can you prevent the greatest scoundrel un-hung from employing an aboriginal under contract?—No."
  Absconders might be arrested on warrant. Employment without contract was the commonest form of service. The proportion of natives under contract to all actually employed was one in twelve. Many employers were objectionable but the police were powerless to interfere. The police were invoked to bring back runaways and this was quite illegal. The indentures were up to twenty-one and too long, and fourteen or sixteen would be better. They received no education. Inspection by justices was permissive, but never used. But all three forms of employment—under contract, without contract, or under indenture—were alike in the fact that no wages were ever paid.
  John Byrne, sergeant of police, Broome, in his evidence was asked—
  " As far as you are aware, are any wages being pail under the contract system?—Not that I know of. I have never heard of anything more than clothes, food, and tobacco being supplied.
  "Have you any opinion of your own as to whether wages should be paid?—I do not see any reason why wages should not be paid. For instance, a settler has a station, and in the dry season all the surface water dries up. The cattle have to be watered from the wells, and he employs natives. If he could not get atives he would have to employ white men. I think it is a big advantage to the settler to have the natives, and they should have some wage."
  Matthew Langtree, stockman, was questioned as follows—
  "How are the natives treated by the Kimberley pastoralists?—They have to work night and day, and all they get is a bit of clothing and a little food. They are only half-fed and half-clothed. It only costs about a shilling a week to keep them. When they get old and infirm they are allowed to lie down and die.
  "Have you been on the stations?—Yes. I have seen old men and women blind and helpless. There is no home for them. They die like dogs."
  Nearly all the witnesses were unanimous that wages should be paid either (a)
  1750
  direct to the native or (b) to the Government to make provision for the indigent and infirm. The Commissioner supported the latter suggestion and proposed a minimum wage of 5s. a month on land, and 10s. a month on boats. The period of leave of absence to be also paid for. Blacks were also employed on municipal works. No wages were paid, save perhaps a bit of tobacco from the mayor. In the pearl-shell industry no wages were paid and the natives were sent out in unseaworthy boats.
  Another witness, Walter John McKenna, Acting Sub-Collector of Customs, Broome, gave evidence as follows—
  "Are you responsible for the administration of the Pearl Fisheries Act?—Yes; as far as prohibited immigrants are concerned, and the shipping of men signing the ship's articles.
  "Can you stop any unseaworthy vessel from going to sea, whether registered under the Merchant Shipping Act or not?—I can only stop a vessel when she is registered.
  "How many of the 400 pearling luggers are thus registered?—I do not know.
  "Do you know anything about the Merchant Shipping Act?—No.
  "Why not?—Because we haven't got a copy of the Act in the shipping office, though we have made repeated applications to the Shipping Master, Fremantle. We have made four applications since last April."
  Graham Blick, medical officer and acting R.M., Broome, was asked—
  "Is anything done to stop an unseaworthy boat from going to sea?—I have no power to prevent any old cranky boat from going to sea.
  "Do you know of anyone here who has power to stop any such boat going to sea?—No. If such a case did occur the matter would have to be dealt with by a special board.
  "Have you ever exercised your power as Resident Magistrate or justice for boarding a vessel to examine the stores in accordance with the Act?—No.
  "Do you know whether any of the other justices have exercised this power?—No. Two of the other justices are pearlers, but I do not think they have visited any but their own boats.
  "You have never satisfied yourself as to the quantity or quality of the stores carried on the boats?—No.
  "Is there any limit to the quantity of liquor that may be carried on these boats?—Not to my knowledge. It is a question for the shipping master."
  Filomeno Rodriguez, pearler, of Broome, said—
  "I think some of the boats are unseaworthy.
  "You mean that they are a danger to human life?—Yes.

  1751
  "Have you ever drawn the attention of the owners to such boats?—Yes.
  "To your knowledge has any action been taken on that information?—No.
  "As far as you are aware does any Government official ever inspect these boats to see whether they are seaworthy or not?—No.
  "If there were such a Government official would there be many boats that he would condemn?—Yes.
  "Is it to the interests of the pearlers that they should keep these unseaworthy boats in use?—Yes. I think it is to their interest.
  "In your experience have you ever known of a justice or a magistrate boarding your vessels and examining your stores, etc.?—Once, in 1886; not since."
  Native boys and women were taken aboard in defiance of statute. Liquor and opium were allowed to be carried in unlimited quantities and liquor was sold to the crews at 10s. per bottle for whisky, and 12s. to 15s. per bottle for gin. Drunkenness and prostitution prevailed along the coast line from La Grange Bay to the east shores of King Sound. Diseases and unspeakable vices were imported by the Malays, Japanese, and Manillamen. Cattle-killing constituted 90 per cent. of native offences. Why? Because squatters shot the kangaroos; pastured their stock on all the watered portions of the run; destroyed the natives' hunting dogs, etc., etc. Arrests were made in crowds from pecuniary motives, as the following evidence clearly proves.
  Mr. Skinner, J..P., Wyndham, said—
  "What are the rations allowed per head per day to the police for prisoners and aboriginal witnesses' rations?—2s. 5d. at out-stations and 1s. 6½d. in Wyndham.
  "Having been here so long you must have a fair idea of the ordinary cost of living, have you not?—Yes.
  "Do you consider that the police make any profit out of this allowance?—I do, of course.
  "Why do you say 'of course'?—It has always been a well-known thing. Everybody knows that they have made a profit out of it for a long time past.
  "Have you ever kept a black here?—Yes.
  "What does it cost you on the average to keep him?—I am feeding the one I have at the present time for 1s. per day, which pays for what he eats. He gets practically the same as I do myself. He is a cripple and the Government pays me 1s. per day for his support."
  1752
  Questions were put to John Wilson, constable of police, Isdell River, as follows—
  "Do you actually spend 2s. 5d. per day on each prisoner or witness?—No; but each native has sufficient food.
  "How could you make up 2s. 5d. per day for rations for a young female aboriginal witness, for instance?—They have the same rations as the men.
  "You say that they only receive flour, tea., and sugar, and that you kill kangaroo sometimes, and that they sometimes collect lizards and roots. I want to know how you can spend 2s. 5d. per head on each one?—(No answer.)
  "Do you mean to tell me that you are not in a position to state whether you make a profit on this 2s. 5d. which you are allowed for daily rations for these blacks?—I make a profit. I do not lose anything by it."
  Dodwell Browne, R.M., a district medical officer, Wyndham, was the next witness—
  "Have you not felt often in dealing with these cases that there is something of an undercurrent of injustice meted out towards the natives in the way that they have been brought in without defence and with no opportunity of calling witnesses?—I have. I have felt all along that they first of all do not thoroughly understand the charge against them. They do not understand the nature of the crime of killing a beast. I have done my best to give them justice in this Court and to give them the lightest sentence possible. I have had my judgments criticised in consequence. All these cases, in my opinion, are a huge source of revenue to the police. It is to their advantage to arrest as many prisoners as they can, whether they have killed or alleged to have killed the beast, because they get their maintenance per day for each man. This is too high and, as common report has it, the cost of one Winchester bullet for killing a kangaroo is about their true feed. The police also get maintenance for rations supplied to witnesses and their children, and they are supposed to escort discharged native prisoners after their time is up back to their homes, and the witnesses too."
  William Goodridge, corporal of police, Wyndham, said—
  "I consider that the police make a considerable profit out of the 2s. 5d. per head per day.
  "Do you consider that this acts as a temptation for them to bring in a larger number of prisoners and witnesses than otherwise?—I do.
  Have you ever mentioned this matter to your chief?—I have not, for the reason that I thought if the thing leaked out I might be looked upon as a black sheep if the other police found out that I had tried to cut down the rate for rations. I spoke about it to one or two."

  1753
  As to the mode of arrest it could be effected either with or without a warrant upon verbal information or upon no information at all. They surrounded the camps at night and waited for daylight. The constables and black trackers were armed with Winchester rifles and chains for fifteen to thirty natives. One constable testifies that he once arrested thirty-three prisoners.
  F. A. Hare, commissioner of police, in his evidence was asked—
  "In cases of cattle killing, do the police arrest an aboriginal without warrant?—Yes, they do. A warrant is taken out in the first place if information is laid against certain aborigines, but when the police go out on patrol and an offence is reported, the offenders are tracked and arrested without a warrant.
  "What method is adopted to prevent their escape from custody?—Chains are used.
  "Are neck-chains used on Europeans under similar circumstances?—I have never heard of it.
  "Have you any legal authority for using neck-chains on natives?—Authority is given in the Police Regulations.
  Regulation 647.—In escorting native prisoners, the practice of chaining them by the neck must not be resorted to except in cases where the prisoners are of a desperate character, or have been arrested at a considerable distance in the bush; or, when travelling by sea, they are near the land to which they belong, and it is necessary to adopt special measures to secure them. Even then the practice must not be adopted if it can be avoided.
  Have you any regulations as to the size or weight of these neck-chains?—No.
  "To what is the neck-chain attached when the prisoner is escorted by a police officer who is mounted?—He would be fastened by the neck and arm and chained to the man next to him, and attached to the saddle only when absolutely necessary."
  Robert Anderson, corporal of police, was asked—
  "In escorting native prisoners do you use neck-chains?—Yes;
  "What authority have you for using them?—I know no legal authority, but the chains are supplied by the Department for that purpose."
  George Jeffery Scott, gaoler, Wyndham, gave evidence as follows—
  "When blacks are brought in in chains from Hall's Creek, are they ever made to swim the rivers in their chains?—As far as I can find out from police and natives, the chains are never taken off them when crossing rivers and creeks.
  "Is not this a great risk to life?—It is a wonder to me that they are not all drowned
  1754
  from what I hear of the state of the rivers in the rainy season.
  "Do you know of any cases of blacks having been drowned in this manner?—Natives in past years have told me that several have lost their lives in crossing the rivers.
  "When the police bring in prisoners to your gaol are they always properly clothed?—They are always naked, with the exception of the usual loin cloth. In the wet season it is very severe on natives travelling without clothing or blankets."
  Chains were used also in prisons. Octavius Burt, Sheriff and Comptroller-General of Prisons was asked—
  "Are neck chains used in prisons?—Yes.
  "Are these chains used continuously during the whole length of the sentence?—Yes.
  "Kindly let me know what is your authority for the use of them?—There is no legal authority. I can only say it is one of those things so universally adopted that it is never questioned. The practice has been in vogue for about thirty years or more I believe.
  "Are neck-chains ever used for Europeans?—Not that I know of.
  "You have no regulations as to the use of neck-chains?—None.
  "Have you any regulations as to the weight and size?—There is nothing laid down.
  The weights of the chains in use are:—Roebourne, from 2 lbs. 12 ozs. to 5 lbs. 14 ozs.; Broome, 2 lbs. 2 ozs.; Wyndham, 5/11 lbs. with Yale lock and everything complete.
  "Has the chain a collar and padlock?—The chain encircles the neck and is fastened with a small Yale lock."
  William Paterson, gaoler, Broome, on the same subject was examined as follows—
  "Who supplies you with these chains? The Comptroller-General of Prisons.
  "Do you use any 'up' and 'down' coupling chains?—No.
  "If you did use such a chain the weight would be much less, would it not?—Yes. It would take a great deal of the strain off.
  "Have you any authority for using neck-chains at all?—Yes.
  "What is the nature of this authority? The nature of the authority is that I must place all native prisoners consigned to my keeping in chains.
  "From whom did you receive this order?— The Comptroller-General of Prisons, Mr. Burt.
  "When did you receive this order?—About the middle of last year, as near as I can tell at the present time.
  "Do you mean to tell me that every aboriginal prisoner who comes here, say for a minor offence e.g., absconding under the 'Merchant Shipping Act,' has to be chained?—Yes, according to the order mentioned

  1755
  "Even although the boy is fairly civilised, and perhaps educated and working for Europeans for years?—Yes.
  "Is it ever mentioned in the warrant that aboriginal prisoners are to be chained?—No.
  "Is it just custom and usage then?—Yes.
  "Do you place neck-chains on any other than aboriginal prisoners?—No."
  It appeared from the Report that the gaolers sometimes allege that the prisoners could not be kept in safe custody except by being chained. That was due to the fact that the prisons were not properly constructed. The use of chains could easily be abolished if the prisons were properly constructed.
  The following was from the evidence of John James Pond, gaoler, Roeburne, who was questioned as follows—
  "Is it ever mentioned in the warrants that the aboriginal prisoners should be kept in chains?—I have never seen it.
  "Do you place neck-chains on any other than aboriginal prisoners?—No.
  "Why not?—It is not necessary.
  "The cells in which your aboriginal prisoners are confined are all stone, with iron bars to the windows and iron gates?—Yes. They are very substantial.
  "Are these cells sufficiently strong to prevent escape?—I should say so.
  "Are the neck-chains kept on the prisoners at night?—Yes.
  "Are they fixed to the walls?—Yes. They are fastened to rings in the wall.
  "If these cells are sufficiently strong, why are the chains not removed at night?—That I could not give you any reason for. If the chains were taken off, the prisoners might 'rush' the gates. Two officers are always on duty, and we would have to arm them. There are twenty prisoners in each cell. It would be possible to leave the prisoners chained together, but not cuffed to the wall.
  "What do you mean by being 'cuffed'?— Attaching the end of the chain by a small handcuff to the ring in the wall."
  The same witness was examined as follows in regard to split-links—
  "When you first receive aboriginal prisoners at this gaol are the neck-chains fixed by single cuffs or by Yale locks?—Some have Yale locks and some have single cuffs.
  "Are the neck-chains ever fixed by any other method?—Yes; by iron split-links. Two batches of prisoners from Wyndham, twenty in each batch, were fixed by this method.
  "What was your method of opening these Split-links?—By hammer and chisel, with the
  1756
  prisoner's neck placed on the blacksmith's anvil.
  "Is not this a dangerous method?—Yes. In case of accident in transport, especially on board ship; if there was a wreck, every life of the twenty might have been lost. Even on shore if one prisoner had a fit it might prove too late to open a link.
  "Does the escorting constable carry appliances to open such split-links in case accident should suddenly befall to any one of the batch?—I have never seen any.
  "About how long did it take your warder to unloose each split-link?—Between five and ten minutes.
  "That is to say, even with all appliances ready to hand, it would take a warder any where between one and a-half and three hours?—Yes.
  "Did the warder find it a difficult job when he unloosened the split-links on the prisoners that came here? —Yes. I had to superintend and hold the chain while the officer opened the link with hammer and chisel. I was afraid it might injure the prisoners' necks; these prisoners had no proper necklets—all raw chains.
  "Can you let me take possession of one of these split-links?—Yes.
  "Did you draw the escorting constable's attention to such split-links being used?—Yes. I asked him why they were used. He did not know. Two of my warders were present."
  George Jeffrey Scott, gaoler, Wyndham, was examined as follows—
  "When you first receive aboriginal prisoners at this gaol from the police, are the neck-chains fixed by single cuffs, Yale locks, or split-links?—Some are fixed with patent split-links, some with both cuff and ordinary split-links, occasionally with cuff only. I think the cuff is only readjusted in the police yard to save time. It is mostly done with split-links.
  "In case of a fall or a fit, is not the use of a split-link dangerous?—Very often. The use of the split-link is dangerous. Also the fact of the chain being too short is dangerous. If a prisoner fell he would be bound to drag down the prisoner on either side of him.
  "How short have you noticed the chain joining two prisoners necks?—Twenty-four inches. I have remarked to the police that I have thought it much too short and was cruel.
  "This Commission has been informed that in the majority of cases the witnesses for the prosecution are young women. Is that so?— In every case on the charge of cattle-killing the police have always brought female aboriginal witnesses.
  "Young ones?—Yes.
  "Have you ever drawn attention to the fact that these aboriginal witnesses are always young females?—No. I have always drawn attention to the fact that the witnesses are females."

  1757
  Matthew John Langtree, stockman, gave the following evidence as to the chaining of witnesses—
  "Are the women put in chains?—Yes. This is done as a safeguard because they are witnesses against the male prisoners.
  "Are the women witnesses?—Yes, in the majority of cases. They are young women."
  John Wilson, constable of police, Isdell River, was questioned as follows—
  "Do you ever arrest the gins?—Yes.
  "Do you accuse them of cattle-killing?—No.
  "Do you arrest them as witnesses?—Yes.
  "Have you any legal authority to arrest these women as unwilling witnesses?—No. Not that I am aware of.
  "How do you detain them, with neck-chains? —They are chained by the ankles.
  "Do you mean that their two legs are chained together? —No. I fasten the gin to a tree with a handcuff and then fix the chain to one ankle with another handcuff—one handcuff for each prisoner.
  "Is it only at night that they are chained like this? —It is necessary to detain them sometimes in the day when going through scrub or rocky country where they might get away. It is very rare that they have to be secured in the daytime.
  "The Commission has received evidence that these witnesses are generally young gins or young children. Is that so?—I have never brought in female children as witnesses, that is, what I have considered children.
  "Have you brought in young women?—Yes."
  "Have you brought in old women?—Yes.
  "Is it true that more young women are brought in as witnesses than very old ones?—I think there would be an equal portion of each.
  ''Do you allow your trackers or the assisting stockmen to have sexual intercourse with the gins whose relatives or friends you have arrested?—They may do it without my knowing it.
  "Do you take any precautions at night that these assisting stockmen or trackers do not have connection with the women when chained to the trees?—No.
  "Does such intercourse go on?—I suppose it does. It could go on in the camp at night and I would know nothing about it.
  "So far as you know, then, this sexual intercourse may go on with these female aboriginal witnesses?—Yes.
  "Do your trackers have sexual intercourse with these female aboriginal witnesses?—I have never watched them. They might do so. I sleep at ease myself and never take any notice of these things. It would have caused trouble if I did."
  1758
  When the witness was asked whether women who were wives and relatives of the prisoners were warned as to giving evidence he said he did not warn them about giving evidence against their husbands.
  John Inglis, constable, was questioned as follows—
  "Do they realise the harm that they are doing to their husbands?—Not in the slightest. They do a lot of harm against their husbands, and do not know it."
  John Wilson was questioned as to bringing evidence for the defence—
  "Do you bring in any witnesses for the defence—No.
  "Why not?—It is not a customary thing in the district. I have never seen it done.
  "This is rather a one-sided kind of justice for the black, is it not.—Yes. I have never known it to be done since I have been in the district.
  "You have admitted that some of these witnesses are relatives of the prisoners, have you not?—Yes. They are all related in one way or another to the prisoners."
  John Inglis, Constable of Police, Hall's Creek, was examined on this point as follows—
  "Do you ever bring in any witnesses for the defence? —No.
  "Is not this a rather one-sided kind of justice for the black?—It is in a sense. It in a queer country where I am. Every mother's son is guilty."
  H. Mackenzie Skinner, J. P., Wyndham, was questioned as follows—
  "Have they any witnesses for the defence?—No; never."
  Mr. Prinsep, Chief Protector of Aborigines, gave evidence as—
  "Is an aboriginal prisoner discharged from gaol without clothes?—Generally, I believe.
  "Do the police bring him into Court without clothes?—Yes, as far as I know."
  The evidence of Dodwell Browne, R.M. and district medical officer, Wyndham, contained the following—
  "Do you ask the accused how he pleads?—Yes.
  "Through an interpreter?—The interpreter generally asks how the man pleads, and the man answers to the Bench with gestures or in the usual pidgin and broken English.
  "Who is this interpreter, as a rule?—He is generally the police boy.
  "How can you guard against this interpreter telling you a lie?—In no way whatever.

  1759
  "Does he always understand the language of the accused, or does he speak through another interpreter?—They are different tribes, but from what I see I think they can understand pretty well the drift of what is said generally.
  "Because the accused happens to admit or is made to admit that he has killed a beast, do you take such a reply to mean that he proposes to plead guilty?—The charge is explained as carefully as I can do it. They kill a beast on such and such a day at such and such a creek. If the man says that he kills such and such a beast I take it that he pleads guilty. I think, and have seen it, that a man will plead guilty now for killing a beast some time ago. The native cannot separate two charges on two beasts, and will still have the one offence in his mind. If he kills a bullock once he will plead guilty to every subsequent charge of killing a bullock no matter how often he will be charged with it.
  ''Do you believe that these wild blacks can be made to understand the scope of the meaning of the terms 'pleading guilty' or 'intent'?—I think very few of them do."
  William Paterson, gaoler, Broome, was asked—
  "Amongst the aborigines sentenced for cattle-killing whom you have shown me, and to whom you have spoken in my presence, how many do you think really understand what they are here for?—Not one of them, in my opinion."
  If an aboriginal pleaded guilty to any offence not capital he might be sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. Ordinarily they were charged conjointly in batches. Prisoners were also cross-examined—a mode of procedure utterly alien from the spirit of English jurisprudence.
  Mr. A. G. Woodroffe, manager, Adelaide Steamship Company, Wyndham, was examined as follows—
  "Does the prosecuting police officer cross-examine the accused?—Yes.
  ''In 'pidgin' English?—In cases where the natives understand English he does it directly in English. In cases where the prisoner does not understand English it is done through the interpreter.
  "Are you satisfied that the evidence of the aboriginal accused and witnesses is correctly obtained?—That is a hard thing to say. I do not understand the native language. There is no doubt in my mind that the native witnesses in many cases are not property cross-examined. As a proof of that I can refer you to the depositions in the Courthouse at Wyndham, which will show that the questions put to all the natives are answered alike in every detail. They all have the same story.
  "When blacks are accused of a crime you do not think they have a fair trial?—I am satisfied
  1760
  in my own mind that they never have a fair trial. If a native is tried for murder he is tried before the Resident Magistrate and committed for trial, and then the same Resident Magistrate is given a commission to again try the same case. It is natural that he will not direct the jury against his previous verdict. I can cite one case (the Teroney case) in which I was not a juryman, but I was interested because I offered bail, but it was not accepted because the Resident Magistrate had a personal animus against mo. I attended the Court in this case, and the Resident Magistrate told the jury that if they did not tiring in a verdict as directed by him it would not be just and right.
  "In most of these cases, then, do you think the blacks merely get the drift of the evidence, or do they really understand the evidence given against them?—I firmly believe that the blacks do not understand the charges that ate brought against them."
  Mr. Prinsep, Chief Protector of Aborigines, was questioned as follows—
  "Are any cases of such a punishment as three years imprisonment on an aboriginal known to you?—Yes.
  "For what?—One case of unlawfully wounding and several others of killing one head of cattle.
  "Can you suggest any justification for a three years sentence on a black for killing cattle?—Yes. Unless severe sentences were given for the suppression of this crime, other and more unlawful means might be taken against the native."
  "What do you mean by 'other and more unlawful means'?—Private suppression or by force of arms.
  ''In your opinion is not a three years sentence a terrible power to put in the hands of a justice?—Certainly.
  William Paterson, gaoler, Broome, was examined as follows—
  "You showed me one old man who was a cripple and practically blind. Is this man here for cattle-killing?—Yes. I have his warrant, which states that he with others pleaded guilty, that he did kill one cow, the property of Rose Brothers, at Isdell River, on or about the 12th day of April, 1904, with intent to steal the carcase. He received six months imprisonment.
  "Have you reported the fact that this man is a cripple and almost blind to your chief?—I have.
  "What made you report it?—The man's condition. I thought it behoved me to recommend that the Government remit the remainder of his sentence.
  "Do you believe in long sentences on aboriginal prisoners?—No. I am opposed to long sentences for offences such as cattle-killing. On the other hand I have noticed of late that the sentences for this offence are not quite so long as they have been in former years."

  1761
  The evidence of J. J. Pond, gaoler, Roebourne, contained the following—
  "Do you believe in long sentences on aboriginal prisoners?—I do not.
  "Can you give me any reasons for thinking so?—I think that when they have been away from their homes so long they seem forgotten when they return. Their tribes will have very little to do with them. They often commit further crimes because their women have been taken.
  "What do you consider the youngest ages of the prisoners you have here?—Sixteen, fifteen, and fourteen years. These boys have been sentenced to two years imprisonment for cattle-killing."
  G. J. Scott, gaoler, Wyndham, was questioned as follows—
  "What do you consider the youngest ages of the prisoners you have at present?—Judging by appearances, between eleven and thirteen years of age.
  "What punishment have these children received? —Sentences from six months to two years, with hard labour.
  "What proportion of these aboriginal prisoners do you honestly believe know what they are in prison for?—When I came here a great number of them were "Myalls," and their idea was that they were here for road-making. As they become educated the majority of them know that they are here for cattle-killing, as they come to gaol so often."
  The young women who were called as witnesses were not sent home again. This was a contravention of the regulations. The police got the money for the homeward escort, put it into their own pockets, and turned the young women out into the streets.
  The hon. Member said he would now read the evidence of two natives, giving in summarised form a description of the evils which prevailed in the administration of justice. Boodungarry was an aboriginal child, about fourteen years of age, undergoing in Wyndham Gaol, a sentence of two years hard labour for alleged cattle-killing. Mr. Hartrick, secretary to the Commission, took shorthand notes, and compiled the following evidence in the form of a readable statement—
  "I was caught by Jack Inglis and Wilson (policemen). Some others, named Manulla and Goominyah, were with me and other men. We were naught at the camp at Mt. Barrett. I had been working for a white man, but left and went, into the bush. Wilson asked mo if I killed cattle. I said 'No.' Wilson and Inglis then talked together, and they said they would shoot me. Inglis put a cartridge in his rifle, pointed it at me, and said he would burn me at a rock.
  1762
  It frightened me, and I then said I did kill a bullock. The first time I said I did not kill any cattle, but this time I was frightened when he said he would shoot, and I said I did kill cattle. He took me and some other blackfellows, who were also frightened. They all said they had killed a bullock because they were frightened. The policemen put handcuffs on our legs and hands. Two of us were chained by the legs. They then caught some more blackfellows—a big mob—and some gins, and took us away. Wilson got a gin and took her into a gully. I have seen Policeman Wilson 'marry' plenty of gins. We were taken to Hall's Creek. At the Courthouse I said nothing, because Inglis told me not to talk. Wilson hammered plenty of blackfellows with nulla-nulla. I do not know why he "wommered' [beat] them, but he frightened me and I did not talk in the Courthouse. The gins did all the talking. The magistrate only spoke to them. He did not ask me whether I killed a bullock."
  Garngulling, a native about thirty years of age, undergoing a sentence also in Wyndham Gaol, for alleged breaking into a house, was examined apart from Boodungarry and said—
  "Jack Inglis [policeman] caught me at the station when I was watering cattle for Ben. Cranwell. Inglis made me get off my horse and go with him. We left my horse at the house. The waterhole was close to Ben. Cranwell's house. I went away with Inglis. One day we came into a camp and all the black fellows ran away into the bush. Inglis asked where the black fellows were, and the police boy asked an old man, who said they had run away. Inglis did not chain me up, but gave me a ride on a horse. We met a wagon. Jack Inglis went into the camp, but there were no blackfellows. We met two gins, who said they wanted to go back to Hall's Creek. We saw tracks of two blackfellows and two gins land followed the tracks. They caught blackfellow Larry. Inglis asked me if I could find some blackfellows. I said there might be some in the creek, as I had seen tracks. We had dinner, and saw two police boys bring up one blackfellow, who was Larry. There were two gins in Inglis's camp. Inglis asked Larry if he killed a bullock belonging to Ben Cranwell. Larry said he did not, and that he came from Hall's Creek with a letter for Ben. Cranwell. Inglis said to Larry, 'Now, you tell truth. If you don't I will burn you in the fire.' I heard it with my own ear. Inglis said, 'I will shoot you.' Two gins sat down and said he killed cattle. They told a lie. Inglis said, 'If you don't tell me the truth I will shoot you.' He picked up the rifle. I saw him holding it in his hand. Larry said he only had kangaroo beef. We then packed up and looked for some more blacks, and got some, including little Tommy, and went into Hall's Creek. I have seen policemen Wilson and Caldow and Jim O'Brien 'marry' gins. [O'Brien was a constable, but has since left the service.] I have seen policemen sleeping with gins at night time. I have seen Caldow sleeping with gin Nelly, who is now working for the corporal at Wyndham. Blackfellows do not like the police. Sometimes

  1763
  on the road we have plenty of tucker, and sometimes nothing. Sometimes we have beef. Sometimes we have nothing for breakfast, nothing for dinner, and for tea we had some Johnny-cake We were often hungry, and had only a little bit of tucker. Policeman would not let gins or tracker get any food. This policeman was named Wilson. We were chained to a tree and had no tucker. Policeman chained the gins by the leg at night time, so that they would not run away. I have seen Inglis put a chain on a gin at the 40- Mile, Ben. Cranwell's station [1522.] Sometimes police men and sometimes police-boy shoot kangaroo for tucker. Sometimes police-boy gets a kangaroo, and takes a prisoner to help him. Gins get tucker from the policeman, but they don't give it to the black man."
  Then he came to the subject of the distribution of the Government rations and blankets. The Report seemed to indicate that the Government did issue these things, but that the persons appointed to distribute them applied them to their own uses. The evidence on that point was as follows—
  T. Houlahan, sergeant of police, Carnarvon—
  "Have you ever caught the police charging for rations which they have not supplied?—I have. About three years ago (I cannot remember the exact date) a constable named Mercer, stationed at the junction, sent in an account for rations supplied to natives, which I knew from my own personal knowledge to be incorrect. I had seen the natives employed and knew that they were being fed by their employer. They were employed washing wool and picking locks at a shearing shed. After seeing that the natives were employed I waited to see what the constable would do. An account came in for rations supplied, and I fully reported on the matter through my department, but heard no more about it.
  "Is it possible for such a thing to happen now?—Yes. It is possible for it to happen now, because I am not permitted to visit the upper station (junction) when I choose. It could happen at any time."
  Mr. Ostlund, R.M., Marble Bar—
  "In your opinion do those distributing relief to natives benefit by so doing?—I certainly think so, and I will read a communication I sent to the Aborigines Department on 18th June, 1900:—
  'From my own observation I find that the old and infirm natives come for relief twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays. On Thursday, the 14th instant, I weighed two lots of rations in the presence of Mr. C. H. Wilson, a Justice of the Peace, and found each to contain about 2 lbs. of rice, 2 lbs. of flour, and ¼ lb. of brown sugar. The natives inform me that they always receive the same ration. From a calculation of the local retail prices the cost of
  1764
  the ration is about half the allowance I hardly think the rations supplied alone would be sufficient for their sustenance, but these are supplemented by the employed natives, who are very kind to the aged and crippled ones. The natives receiving relief appear to be fairly well nourished.'
  "As far as I remember, I had a reply from Mr. Prinsep, in which he said that he did not abject to distributors pecuniarily benefiting by the relief as long as it was within reason. I quote this instance to show that I have drawn the attention of the Chief Protector to the matter."
  Mr. J. Langtree, stockman, said—
  "I am certain the blacks do not receive the rations authorised by the Government."
  As to the burial of these unfortunate aboriginals, the evidence of Mr. Prinsep, Chief Protector, was—
  "Are prayers paid for at a burial?—No; unless the deceased was a recognised Christian.
  "Have you ever paid for prayers at the grave?—I believe I have in some instances, although under protest.
  "Do you consider that there is any necessity for prayers? —No."
  There was only one bright spot, only one bit of pleasant reading in all this Report. It was the evidence of Father Nicholas, a Trappist monk, who seemed to have been to these aborigines what Father Damien was to the lepers in the Sandwich Islands. He established schools, orphanages, homes for the aged and the infirm, and accomplished all this at his, own expense. Father Nicholas' evidence was as follows—
  "Who pays for all this?—I do. I have given all I have. I have no more. And now for the first time after ten years work amongst these people, I am in debt to the amount of about £100.
  ''Do you mean to tell me that the Government has given you no pecuniary assistance? —Not a penny, so far. But the time has now arrived at last when unless the Government come soon to my assistance, I can no longer continue this expenditure which, though I have to admit it with a wounded heart (le cœur naure), will mean that I shall have to abandon all such sick natives to their fate. When Mr. Olivey travelled round here on behalf of the Aborigines Department, the Resident Magistrate spoke to him very forcibly on the necessity for giving some assistance to these blacks. Mr. Olivey promised to make the necessary recommendation to the proper quarters. I received only one box of medicines.
  "Does any religious body give you pecuniary assistance in this good and noble work?—No.
  "You are then dependent only upon the charity of the Broome public?—Yes.

  1765
  "Where do you keep all these sick people that you have just mentioned?—With the exception of three of the worst cases (the amputated leg, the pleurisy, and the syphilitic which I have here at the back of my premise in a tent and a hut, they are all at the Point.
  "Where is this Point?—A headland, within the town boundary, where I have 10 acres, a very healthy locality and exposed to the sea breeze.
  "Is there anything paid for this?—Yes. It is rented at £3 per year.
  "Who pays this £3?—I do. It is my blacks camp.
  "Are there many old and infirm blacks in the neighbourhood of Broome?—Yes; I have often found them dying of hunger in the absence of a little care and kindness. Considering the many instances I have come across in Broome, how many must there be in other centres occupied by aborigines! I would suggest that all such cases, instead of being abandoned to their fate like dogs, should be collected into certain areas and looked after by some one friendly to the natives. But, for this the assistance of the Government is essential."
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary what he proposed to do in this matter? Did he propose to to make any change in the constitution of the Protector of Aborigines? That gentleman seemed to have no legal status. Powers should be given to him to deal with children, in the way of sending them to schools and reformatories. All the witnesses were unanimous that the children ought to be fed, taught, and saved from thievery and prostitution. There were also the questions of supplying the natives with liquor and opium. A much heavier fine than at present should be imposed for the first offence. A second offence should be punished by imprisonment without the option of a fine. Most of all he urged the necessity of a speedy and drastic reform of the system which prevailed with regard to the administration of justice. To effect such reform it was surely unnecessary to wait for fresh legislation. These abuses were not so much owing to statutory defects. They were mainly administrative. The whole evil system of arresting and chaining both prisoners and witnesses in great batches for the purpose of securing the capitation fees, of forcing the prisoners to plead guilty at the muzzle of the rifle, of outraging the girl witnesses while in irons, of trying native prisoners for offences the very nature of which they were incapable
  1766
  of appreciating, of using the police boy as official interpreter in Court, of sentencing them to long terms of imprisonment, and of making them work out the whole period of their sentence in chains—all this could be amended by the vigilant supervision of the Executive, and without need for recourse to the Legislature. He had endeavoured to be as simple and concise as possible. If the facts set forth were correct—and he apprehended there was no one who would impugn their accuracy—then he confidently invited the House to condemn a state of things which was a disgrace to a British colony, and which would be a blot on even the most barbarous community.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARR (St. Helens)said he had had the opportunity of looking through this Report on the Condition of the Aborigines in Western Australia; and he was bound to say that the hon. Member was perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the House. Any one who spent half an hour in reading that Report could only come to the conclusion that this was a very bad case and ought to be dealt with by the proper authorities. He was aware that his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary and His Majesty's Government were in a difficult position, because this was a question which affected the internal administration of a self-governing colony; but it was a question of wide and general interest. They had in another continent an example of what had happened in regard to the treatment of aboriginal races, and if his hon. friend had no direct power in this matter, it was just as well that the British public should not be ignorant of, and that British public opinion should be expressed on, the condition of things which had been described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He should like to state to the House the terms of reference upon which this Commission was appointed. It was appointed by the Governor of Western Australia on August 31st last year. There was something significant in those terms of reference. The Commission consisted of one man, no doubt chosen because he was most thoroughly cognisant of the conditions of the problem, and the reference said that this commission was appointed to consider the position

  1767
  of the aborigines in West Australia in respect of the allegations made when the Bill of 1897 was proposed. He could only think that the Governor must have had some information as to the state of things prevailing in regard to the natives conveyed to him, or he would have given less full power to the Commission.
  He did not wish, in regard to this Report, to harrow the feelings of the House, but he should certainly like to refer to two points. The first was as to the manner in which these prisoners were compelled to plead guilty. The Commissioner reported that, with a view to justifying their action in bringing these men into court, the police naturally took care to be sure of their victims. Unfortunately, the Report went on to say—
  "The Criminal Code of 1892 put something of a weapon into the hands of the police. It really saves trouble to get the prisoners to plead guilty, and it enables the police to deal more rapidly with a large number of native prisoners, in respect of whom they get certain fees, and so, to secure convictions, the accused are made to plead guilty—at the muzzle of the rifle, if need be."
  One was really reminded of some of the things which happened in the dark ages, and one could not help looking with wonder and regret on the mere possibility that such things could happen in the British dominions at the present time. The other question he wished to refer to was that of the failure of the Colonial Government to supply adequate native reserve territory. It might be said that part of the difficulty of remedying what was going on lay in the other difficulty of making a perhaps not very intelligent police force understand the best method of dealing with uncivilised natives. What the Commissioner said on this point was interesting and instructive. He said that a great responsibility rested upon the Colonial Executive in respect of the large amount of country which they were continually allowing to be taken up by British settlers without making the slightest provision for a land reserve for the natives, who were thus dispossessed of their hunting grounds. To raise cattle, the Commission went on to say in the Report, the kangaroo, which largely served the natives with food, was got rid of, and when kangaroos got scarce
  1768
  the unfortunate natives, whose standard of intelligence and of right and wrong was naturally not very high, were almost bound to commit crime in order to save themselves from starvation. In other words, they must either kill sheep or cattle which did not belong to them or they must starve. No doubt this, as he had said, was really a matter for the consideration of the colony, since it was a self-governing one, but he thought there was also some responsibility upon them, and, at all events, he was sure his right hon. friend would wish to seek some chance of impressing or the Colonial Government the desirability of giving these poor natives some chance of living in their own country. Much the same problem had presented itself in the Western States of America, but it was solved in a very different way, because when the Indians were conquered and the whites entered on possession of their territory large reserves were kept for them. That was the only way in which they could live, since the buffaloes which they used to hunt had been practically exterminated. If they had not been supplied with reserves they would have been face to face with the dilemma which they were now allowing the unfortunate aborigines of Western Australia to face. The same problem would probably face them for many years in Africa, and the only way he could see of meeting it was to arrange for the provision of more reserves on which these natives could live. In Australia, as he had said, they had no direct control, but he thought the question ought nevertheless to occupy the serious attention of the Colonial Government, and ho thought, so far as was possible, public opinion in this country might fairly be so expressed as to stimulate action by the Government.
  Might he, in conclusion, point to the conclusions at which the Commissioner arrived at the close of his Report? He admitted that in the areas over which the investigation had been made he was satisfied that the natives, generally, were not subjected to any actual physical cruelty, but said that wrong and injustice were taking place throughout those areas which could not, in his opinion, be longer either hidden or tolerated. Fortunately these wrongs were of such a nature, he added, that they could

  1769
  be dealt with by legislative action and by Departmental supervision, and he concluded with the earnest prayer, on the eve of his departure, that in the next Colonial Parliament the Bill of 1894 supplemented would become the Aborigines Act of 1905. There were redeeming features in the case—one was that an attempt was made on a former occasion to bring in a Bill protective of the natives, and the other was that the Governor of the colony seemed to have had his attention drawn to the matter at a more recent date, and that that led him to appoint the Commission. It should not be forgotten also that the Commissioner had only just reported, so that they might hope for the passing of the Bill, which was again on the stocks. He would only express a hope, in conclusion, that his right hon. friend would give the House some assurance that, so far as he was concerned, everything possible would be done to expedite a reform in this matter.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the case presented by the two previous speakers appeared, from the Report of the Commission, to be only too well founded, and went to show that the old gloomy story of the treatment of aboriginal Australians by white men was still true in at least one of the Colonies. He only wished that the hon. Member who had brought the question forward had shown equal zeal for the natives of the Congo State, but by a strange inconsistency he happened to be the only Member of that House who hitherto had undertaken the defence of the Congo Government when its methods were called in question in the British Parliament.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: The charges made last year against the Congo were vague and shadowy, based mainly on hearsay and not on substantial evidence. The Roth Report which he had been discussing was a legal, public document, upon which he invited the House to pass its opinion.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that His Majesty's Government had sent the British Consul on a tour of inquiry in the Congo Free State, and it was on the revelations in his Report that their
  1770
  indictment largely rested. But, however that might be, the House had reason to be grateful to the hon. Member that night. He quite realised that the Government of West Australia and not the Colonial Secretary were responsible for what the Report of the Commission disclosed, but it was nevertheless well that it should be clearly known that there were many Members of the British House of Commons who felt most strongly on this matter, and who expressed a very ardent hope that early and effective steps would be taken to stop the discreditable proceedings that had been described.
  He wished, however, to deal with another question. He did not know whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to a proclamation issued in Southern Nigeria in 1900. Under that proclamation the Governor was empowered to order a chief to attend to the cleaning out of any creek, and to call on the natives to do the work without, apparently, any pay, while any man refusing to help in the work was liable to imprisonment. That was a system of forced labour —a corvee — which he thought it undesirable to introduce into British Colonies, especially as it might with equal justice be applied in regard to the making of roads and railways, and he trusted that, unless the proclamation was qualified in some way in its administration, its withdrawal would be ordered by the Colonial Secretary. He also pressed the right hon. Gentleman for further information in connection with the Chinese labour question in South Africa—information which had been promised on various occasions. He specially wanted specific inquiry to be made into the report that white men were being dismissed from the Transvaal mines to make room for Chinese coolies through the substitution of hand-drills for machine-drills. He was assured that such displacement was taking place, especially in the Van Ryn Mine, and he also understood that a proportion of the white men who were ousted had the option of going back to work at a reduction of from twenty-five to thirty per cent. in their wages.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that on a previous occasion he raised the matter of the Transvaal loan. There

  1771
  were two points which, he pressed on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. One was in regard to the guarantee of the mineowners, and he desired to again press it on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The other was the question of the draft Ordinance which the Legislative Council had to pass before the thirty million loan could be issued and was also very important, having regard to the relationships between the Colonial Office and the Legislative Council with reference to the loan. He thought he could put his case by quoting from two despatches. Sir Arthur Lawley, on December 7th, 1903, wrote that, not having heard from Lord Milner, he was anxious to know whether they were to pass the necessary Ordinance during the then ensuing session, and if so what should be the form of the Ordinance, having regard to the existing guarantee loan. To that the right hon. Gentleman replied on December 12th.
  "Referring to your telegram of December 6th, I fully discussed the issue of the first instalment with Lord Milner. I do not consider it desirable at present to approach the guarantors as to the terms of the issue, but I shall do so before long probably, and will inform you of the result. All necessary provision in respect of the guaranteed loan is made in the draft Ordinance formulated in my despatch of the 22nd August. The Ordinance should be passed exactly as drafted, otherwise marked difficulties might arise here."
  Incidentally a very important point arose as to the question of the sinking fund. The mineowners stipulated that there should be no sinking fund. The Lieutenant-Governor, replying on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman, said that a sinking fund was considered essential by the Executive Council. These were two points the House ought to bear in mind when discussing this matter. Another point was the view of the Boers in regard to the loan. At the Boer congress on May 23rd, 1904, a resolution was passed reiterating the protest of the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in January, 1903, against the placing of a thirty million war debt on the land before responsible government was granted. He desired to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he had conceded the wishes of the Boer Congress that no step should be
  1772
  taken with regard to the issue of the Transvaal loan until representative government had been granted; whether the Legislative Council of the Transvaal had really refused to pass the Ordinance to sanction this loan; or whether they had put before the right hon. Gentleman reasons which enabled him to come to the conclusion that in the meantime the loan should not be issued. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in the statement that the Government ought to have made an arrangement with the Legislative Council of the Transvaal at the time the guarantee loan was issued. That was the time to get the Legislative Council of the Transvaal to have passed the Ordinance sanctioning the loan. The Government did not do so, and the result had been that all negotiations had stopped since December, 1903. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would in his reply give some explanation as to this.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington)said the hon. Member for Cleveland had not given him notice of his intention to raise the question of a proclamation in 1900 for the clearing out of creeks in Southern Nigeria. He was unable to deal with the question from memory, but he would make inquiries. As to the question of Chinese labour, he was in possession of Returns with regard to sentences, and he proposed to embody them in a Blue-book very shortly. A Report upon South African native affairs had been placed in the Library. With regard to the alleged displacement of white men by the substitution of hand labour for machine labour the facts were these. In a reef which was narrow it was undesirable to use the machine, because there was a danger that when the dynamite charges were placed in the holes drilled they would blow down not only the reef but also a portion of the roof which was incumbent on the r ef. This was bad from the point of view of economy, because a quantity of rock became mixed with the ore and sifting was expensive, and also because there was great danger to the workmen. Therefore the use of machine-drills in narrow reefs was undesirable. They

  1773
  came into use to some extent during the time when there was a great shortage of native labour. That shortage was now being redressed, and the machine-drill was now only being used in reefs that were sufficiently broad. He was informed that the result was not to displace white labour at all. That was merely the dictum that he had received from authoritative sources in South Africa, and before he made himself a party to it he should wish to see the exact figures.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that white labour was intended to be merely temporary in these mines, and it was intended, as soon as native and other labour could be found, that the white labour should be replaced.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that during the time of the shortage of labour the mine-owners used every effort to secure the elaboration of a small stope machine for the purpose of meeting these difficulties instead of employing white unskilled labour, and whether that attempt had been abandoned.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had not heard of the attempt suggested by the hon. Member. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh in connection with the Transvaal loan, the matter now stood in this position. A sinking fund was obviously desirable in the case of such a loan, and the desirability was pointed out by him to the guarantors. The assent of the guarantors to the creation of a sinking fund was given in January, 1904, provided that there was no diminution of the interest. The Government had lo take great care in dealing with the terms of the guarantee, as any variation of the terms might have released the guarantors from their obligation. When he first went to the Colonial Office, and was not very familiar with the question of the loan, he hoped to raise the first £10,000,000 in January, 1904, according to the promise which had been given and had never been receded from by the underwriters. But it was expressly understood that this loan should not be issued at a time of unfavourable market conditions, and by January, 1904, it had become apparent
  1774
  that the market conditions were very unfavourable. That condition of things continued throughout a considerable portion of 1904. The time went by in which this loan could be issued, and in the ordinary coarse the condition precedent to the issue of the loan—namely, the passage of the Ordinance—also lapsed. He understood the hon. Member to ask whether it was not desirable now to obtain the Ordinance from the Legislative Council. What he desired on behalf of the Government was not to press this subject upon the nominated Assembly. He had admitted that the money market was now favourable, and the guarantors were willing and anxious that the loan should be issued. But the Imperial Government thought that it was desirable, not only in the economic interests of the mother country, but also in a high degree politically, that the representative Assembly should take this obligation upon themselves. For that reason he had not proceeded with the Ordinance, or asked the unrepresentative Assembly to sanction it, which would be the necessary step if the loan were to be issued at the present time.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the money market was favourable now.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid if the market conditions were favourable the guarantors were equally willing to adhere to the conditions of their underwriting. He did not know whether the prophecy of the hon. Member that representative Government would not have come into being until the present Administration had gone out of being was an anticipation of gloom or of hope, but he was afraid it could not affect the question. If he understood the debate aright, even the hon. Member's own side—he might quote the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick and the senior Member for Oldham—agreed that the loan should not be enforced by the high hand of a nominated Council, but that they should wait until representative Government had come into being. He further understood the hon. Member to say that the Boers had protested against this obligation being undertaken in any form by the colony until the fullest

  1775
  self-government had been granted. That was no part of any understanding, expressed or implied by His Majesty's Government, and they wholly declined to accept such a conclusion.
  *MR. McCRAEasked whether any opinion had been expressed by the Legislative Council with regard to the issue of the loan, altogether apart from the question of the £10,000,000 and the favourable opportunity.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid that no opinion had been given by the Legislative Council on that point. The correspondence which took place between His Majesty's Government, Lord Milner, and Sir Arthur Lawley was strictly confidential, so that he had not been able to lay it on the Table of the House, but no communication had passed between the Home Government and the Legislative Council on that point.
  With regard to the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for South Armagh, after a very full analysis of quotations from the Report which had been made, it was unnecessary for him further to elaborate the matter. No one who had read that Report could possibly say that the state of things there revealed was not wholly deplorable. Nobody could defend such a condition of affairs or read of it without a feeling of great abhorrence. But hon. Members would remember that they were dealing with a self-governing colony which as regarded its internal affairs was substantially independent. A measure had been brought forward in the Legislative Council of that colony dealing with this matter. But he was informed that the Government of Western Australia desired to make perfectly certain of the facts—more precisely certain of the exact nature of the deplorable state of affairs which had been brought to their notice—and they appointed Dr. Roth, a thoroughly efficient and independent man, to inquire into the matter. On December 29th they received from him the Report which had been so largely quoted, and that Report reached the Colonial Office on the 23rd of this month. He had written a despatch and also cabled to know in detail what were the precise intentions of
  1776
  Colonial Ministers, but he had not yet received a reply. He understood that this Commission was appointed in order that full legislation might be brought forward in 1905, and he entirely identified himself with the hope expressed by the Commission that the legislation brought forward in 1904 would, with the additions recommended in the Report, become an Act of Parliament in 1905. He expressed the obligations of himself and the House to the hon. Member for having brought forward this matter, which it was obviously desirable in the interests of all should be made public; but he wished particularly to guard himself against admitting that the Australian Government were not conscious of the evils which existed or not desirous of dealing with the matter with thoroughness and expedition.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONfully endorsed the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and said that while it was perfectly obvious that in such a matter the authorities at Downing Street had no control over the self-governing Colonies, it was of advantage that public opinion in this country should be expressed, not for the purpose of reflecting in any way on the Colonial Government, but with the hope that it was in accord with British views and that it would thereby be strengthened in the carrying out of proper reforms. With regard to the Transvaal loan, the right hon. Gentleman had once more repeated, as though it was an answer to their contention, that he could not see his way to press or force upon the Legislative Council, just when some extension of representative government was to be made, an Ordinance recognising the obligations of the Transvaal in regard to this loan. Every Member of the Opposition who spoke in the previous debate agreed that it would be a great mistake to do anything of the sort under existing circumstances. Obviously the loan could be issued only when the market was favourable, and the Ordinance could not be forced through the present or any other Legislative Chamber against its will. But the point raised by his hon. friend was that the House gave its assent to the £35,000,000 loan on the

  1777
  absolute condition that the £30,000,000 loan should be issued at some time, and the then Colonial Secretary said that an Ordinance would be at once passed by the Legislative Council giving a legal recognition on the part of the Transvaal of their indebtedness in that respect. The question was, why was not that Ordinance passed in 1903, which all agreed could not be asked for now? It was most unfortunate that it should not have been passed them, as the question would not now have arisen in connection with the change in the form of government, but the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation whatever of why the Ordinance had been hung up for two years. With regard to the alleged substitution of Kaffir and Chinese labour for white labour, he understood the facts were not denied.
  MR. LYTTELTONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that under certain conditions there had been a substitution, but that on the whole there had not been a diminution of white labour. In the particular mine referred to, it was not the case that the white labour which had been removed was temporary labour. He understood that it was permanent labour, and that it had been displaced simply because of the alteration in the system under which Kaffir and Chinese labour was substituted for white labour. He did not doubt that the Colonial Secretary was under the impression that no such substitution had been made. Those who had considered the figures given at the beginning of last year before Chinese labour was brought in, must have come to the conclusion that, compared with the former proportion of white to coloured labour, there had been a very considerable substitution of Kaffir and Chinese labour for white labour in connection with the mines both above and below ground. The latest figures showed that, since the advent of the Chinaman, white labour in the mines had only increased
  1778
  by 2,000, and even some proportion of that was due to work anticipatory of the advent of the Chinese. There were something like 50,000 more natives and Chinese, that was, 20,000 natives and 30,000 Chinese in the mines. Upon those figures, instead of there being an increase of white labour of 2,000 there should have been an increase of 8,000 or 10,000, as an influx of 50,000 unskilled labourers ought to have led to a proportionate increase in the employment of white labour, but the old proportion of white to coloured labour there had disappeared, and that would have more than accounted for the increase of 2,000, so that practically there had not been a single additional white man employed because of the importation of Chinese labour. The real fact of the matter was that before the influx of Chinamen there was great pressure upon the mine-owners to use white labour and they employed white labour. The whole of that pressure had now disappeared, and naturally they now were employing a far smaller proportion of white men to unskilled labourers than before the influx of the Chinaman. Would the Colonial Secretary try to find out how far white labour had been displaced, in what way, and whether there were at the present moment as many white men employed in proportion as there were before the importation of the Chinese? He appealed to the right hon Gentleman to state whether the time had not come when some limitation ought to be placed upon the influx of the Chinaman. When the Colonial Secretary got the House to consent to the Chinese Ordinance, he did so on the ground that there was a deficiency of 30,000 unskilled labourers. Now he had not only got 30,000, but 50,000. They had seen how the experiment was likely to operate, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well now say whether he intended placing some limitation upon the influx of the Chinese instead of allowing the mineowners to introduce as many as they like. He should also like to know when they would have placed before them the letters patent of the new Constitution. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether they were likely to have this information before Easter.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that in the case of a number of mines in the Transvaal the mine proprietors employed a very considerable number of whites for working drilling machines temporarily in order to tide over the time until, with greater safety, they could employ the hand-drill in the unskilled hand of the Chinaman or the Kaffir. With regard to the employment of white men in the mines the hon. Member for Poplar had acknowledged an increase of 2,000. A few weeks ago he gave the figures for one mine, which showed that there had been an increase of 275 white men in that particular mine. Of that number seventy-five were employed upon buildings and construction, and therefore 200 extra white skilled workers had been employed in that mine since the Chinese were brought in. At the first glance the importation of 30,000 Chinamen and Kaffirs and the small increase of white men might appear somewhat startling, but what were the facts? In the mines, as every business man knew, in order to keep the organisation going a certain number of men must be employed. In the Transvaal, in spite of the opinion that had been expressed by a good many hon. Members, who seemed to think that the mineowners were entirely selfish, he wished to state that there had been upon the part of the mine proprietors a deep sense of their responsibility in regard to the employment of white labour in the Transvaal, and he knew that in many mines white men were kept on when there was practically very little to do; and they were employed, exactly as the hon. Member for Cleveland had pointed out, for this particular work of drilling by machinery which was neither suitable for them or for the mines. There had been an increase of 50,000 Chinamen and Kaffirs, but he wished to point out that the proportion of white men in the mines to the amount of production before the introduction of Chinese and Kaffirs was not according to the necessity, and until sufficient Chinamen and Kaffirs had been brought in to establish things upon the ordinary basis of production, there could not, of course, be a very large increase of skilled white labour. Of course as soon as the balance was got then the increase of skilled white
  1780
  labour would be very considerable, in the proportions pointed out by the Colonial Secretary in his previous speeches in the House. It had been stated again and again in the country, most inaccurately, that the proportionate increase of skilled white workers to the proportion of recruited Chinamen was not according to the information given by the Colonial Secretary and others who had spoken on the question in relation to the mines. Until the numbers of Kaffirs and Chinese properly balanced the number of men kept on, men who were unnecessary for the mine when there was not sufficient work, until that balance was got, there could not be as large an increase as would probably be anticipated. That time had almost arrived. A number of the white skilled workers kept on hitherto without sufficient work had now got, sufficient work, and the hon. Member for Poplar, in suggesting that this increase of 2,000 in white men employed represented largely men employed in construction, was inaccurate.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not make that statement. What he said was that they had no information to go upon because the Colonial Secretary had been unable to give them any. They had been informed that the proportion of these men employed upon buildings and construction was probably about 25 per cent., and upon that calculation they would have to deduct 500 men from the 2,000 alluded to.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that probably a good number had been employed upon construction, but those men were being absorbed, and would be absorbed when construction ceased by the ordinary skilled work in the mines. The whole tendency now was towards an increase of skilled workers rather than the decrease which existed before the introduction of the Chines. He could only give his own impression upon this point.
  Perhaps he might be permitted to say a word or two in connection with the question raised by the hon. Member in regard to the Transvaal loan, not from the standpoint of those who had already spoken. The other day he listened with interest to the speech of the right

  1781
  hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke with great feeling and with great wisdom from his large public experience, upon their relations to the colonies which they had lately acquired, and he said that they could afford, if it were a question of closer union with this country, to forego that £30,000,000 loan in order to accomplish a closer identification of those colonies with this country. He might be allowed to say something with regard to his own experience. Before he went to the Transvaal he heard that public opinion there and in the Orange River Colony was against the placing of the loan. There was in their mind an impression that the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, like some South American Republics, might repudiate the bargain. This was said once or twice by gentlemen whose opinions he rated highly, they having had large experience in Colonial matters; but when he went to the Transvaal he came to the conclusion that the £30,000,000 should be placed. He believed the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony should bear that burden. He believed that all reasonable pressure should be put upon them by the Government. He was glad to say that the invariable reply to many hundreds of inquiries he had made, not among irresponsible people and not among mine-owners only, as to whether they meant to repudiate the debt, was that if it meant ten, fifteen, or twenty years they intended to keep to their bargain. All responsible British people in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony approved of the loan and would be ready to bear the responsibility. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh was quite wrong in supposing that there was a feeling against it in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, and that there might be a strong desire to repudiate such a debt of honour.
  MR. McCRAE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I did not make any such suggestion. I asked whether the Legislative Council might not repudiate it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He understood him to say that there was a strong
  1782
  feeling against it in the Transvaal. There was, however, and naturally, a feeling among their Boer and Dutch fellow-subjects there against it becoming a charge upon the future of the country. He thought they could understand that. The country was a hard one to live in, and the Boers were an agricultural people, and any heavy charge upon the lard would be a severe handicap upon them. He sympathised with them, and he thought they all did in this matter. The leaders of the people, however, were unnecessarily fearful of this being made a burden upon the land. It would not fall upon the land; it would fall upon those whom hon. Gentlemen in the House thought should properly bear it. Those gentlemen who were so often criticised in the House would, if it were a question of honour, take the whole burden upon themselves, if necessary, in order to clear themselves from any reproach by the people of this country. It would, he thought, be a dangerous thing to say that this country was quite willing not to press the matter and to forego the loan. It was in human nature to accept freedom from debt if it were offered, and it would, to his mind, be most undesirable to suggest: "Well, you are hard up; we will not press you; you need not pay the loan." We should be injuring that country instead of benefiting it, because self-reliance, self-dependence, and honour necessarily, and pre-eminently necessarily demanded in this case that the debt should be paid even if it took twenty years. It was a question which the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony must face, not only in our interests, but in the interests of their own nationality.
  Referring to the question of the treatment of aborigines in Western Australia, the hon. Member said he was extremely glad the House had taken a temperate view on this question. Anyone who had lived in a colony for any length of time knew how sensitive the people there were. When they saw facts crowded into a Report like that quoted it was too dramatic. They had the whole thing concentrated in a fashion which was apt to mislead the judgment. There was a previous agitation on this question, and the House

  1783
  would remember that most of these unfortunate acts on the part of officials, police, and others were the results of a series of reprisals upon both sides. In the old days of Queensland there was not a squatter that was safe, and if the West Australian Government punished severely there was good reason for it; for sometimes the stealing of horses or the killing of cattle practically deprived the people, who were far from railways and means of locomotion, of the means of livelihood. In dealing with native races, and particularly with a race so low down the scale of intelligence as the aborigines of Australia, methods sometimes severe and often cruel were used, but the Government must not be blamed; the blame rested very largely upon individual people far removed from the control of law in a sparsely settled country. A responsibility was thrown upon the individual in such a country which was not thrown upon him where millions of people were concentrated and where the supervision of conduct could be better maintained. He thought the Australian Government would act more strongly because of the sympathetic pressure discussion in that House was sure to produce, and, suggested that they should not grow too sentimental over even such a state of things as had been decribed. He expressed the opinion that the Australian Government would act with even greater promptness than our Government would act.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that if they discussed from time to time the question of South Africa it was not—at least on his part—from the smallest desire to embarrass the Government in their duties in relation to that country, and still less was it their desire to throw blame on the Colonial Secretary, who had had imposed on him by inheritance a task as difficult as any statesman had been required to undertake in his recollection of public life. The reason why they ought to dwell to a certain extent on these things was that the House during the last five or six years had been constantly misled by the information which came from South Africa. The Press there, as was perfectly well known, was mainly in the hands of the mineowners, and we did not get, and had never got, true
  1784
  statements of facts from South Africa We did not know, except from private sources, of the destitution and misery there was in South Africa, of the sufferings which the white people had gone through, or of the many people who, having gone out there in the vain hope that they would succeed, had had to return. The information which came in private letters, and through other sources, was that the country was in a very serious condition financially and socially. He was not speaking now about Chinese labour. Therefore, it became incumbent on the House to dwell on these matters more or less. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down gave the expectation that there would be more white people employed in the Transvaal at some future stage. It had always been "in the future." They were always to be blessed; they never were blessed. Not one of the expectations held out in regard to that country four or five years ago had ever been fulfilled. There had never been an instance in recent history of such a constant succession of vain hopes held out as to the predicted relations between the coloured and the white population in the Transvaal. He would believe those predictions would be verified when they were verified. The soldiers who went out to this Golconda were to find employment and settlement. That was on the placards inviting Volunteers.
  What happened? Many of these men went out to stay—but not in the usual sense applied to an emigrant; and others had to come back disappointed to this country after risking their life in the war. The whole thing had proved an utter failure. There was to be an agricultural military colony. That was dealt with in a Special Report by the present Secretary for War who went into the history of various military colonies from the time of the Romans downwards. The whole thing had ended in some 500 or 600 heads of families being settled in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony together. Hardly any of them had gone with their families, and a great proportion of them had since left the place. That settlement had cost this country from £1,200 to £1,500 per head of family who had settled there They could not go on colonising a British

  1785
  white population in the Transvaal when each head of family cost from £1,200 to £1,500. This expense was primarily drawn from the resources of the Transvaal, but the great part of it had been paid for out of the £35,000,000 loan which had been guaranteed by this country In addition to that, he had discovered that upwards of £20,000,000 of our funds had been spent in the Transvaal during the two years since the war. How much more had yet to be traced? Then, there was the irrigation scheme. A most elaborate Report, approved by Lord Milner, recommended the expenditure of £30,000,000 on irrigation, which was one of the things that was to bring wealth to and develop the agricultural resources of the Transvaal. He believed irrigation was a most excellent thing, especially in such a country; but they had never heard anything more about it.
  Then, there was the debt of £30,000,000 that was to be repaid. Originally it was to be £170,000,000; in fact, enthusiasts spoke of the whole cost of the war being paid by the Transvaal. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] Yes; that was the burden of their song. Then it was to be £100,000,000; next £50,000,000, and lastly it came down to £30,000,000, But the £30,000,000 had not been paid, and he thought rightly because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had said, the equilibrium between expenditure and income had not yet been established. In other words, the Transvaal could hardly pay its own way. Here he would correct the hon. Gentleman opposite who seemed to think that he had said that, on the ground of sentiment, the debt of £30,000,000 due by the Transvaal should be forgiven. He had never put it on that ground. He was one of those who believed in maintaining the greatness of this country and the bonds of union between us and the Colonies. He sincerely desired to be just, not only to the Colonies but just to ourselves. When the Estimates for the Army and Navy were looked at, he thought there was no risk of our being unjust to the Colonies, but that a great risk was run of being unjust to ourselves. No one could see any real prospect of this money being paid or this debt being undertaken by the Transvaal, and, there-fore, it should be dismissed from our minds.
  1786
  He might be wrong. He should like to see those who fomented the war made to pay the whole of the debt; but it was impossible, from the nature of things, to say that a population of 300,000 could take on the burden of £35,000,000 for the loan and the £30,000,000 debt besides. He believed the Government were right not to press for the payment of the debt of £30,000,000, although he was not advocating any generous abandonment of it. But they ought to face facts, and not live in dreamland. He did not, however, imagine that there was any real prospect of getting it at all.
  Then they should remember the expectations of freedom being established in that country for which we went to war. Why, under the Ordinance issued two or three years ago—an Ordinance as autocratic as any ever issued in Russia—the Government of the Transvaal were enabled to put a man out of the country within twenty-four hours, without previous notice or explanation; and to arrest and keep a man in prison for three weeks without warrant or bringing him before a magistrate. He was quite sure such rules were as objectionable to the sentiment of the Colonial Secretary as to himself. The only other matter on which he wished to refer was the treatment of our Indian fellow-subjects. One of the grievances for which we went to war with the Transvaal was the unmerited and abominable treatment of these Indian natives when they went peacefully to that country. It was not disputed that the restrictions on our Indian fellow-subjects were now greater, or at least quite as strict, as during the time of the South African Republic.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid that a judgment had been pronounced by the Transvaal Supreme Court in either May or June last, which gave liberty to British Indians to trade. That was one of the objects sought, and sought in vain, from the old Transvaal Government by his predecessor and by the Indian Government. That judgment stood, and British Indian colonists had a licence to trade as a right. That was a substantially better position for them to be in than they were

  1787
  before the war, a position against which this country protested.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was very glad to hear that. His information must be belated, and the recent judgment must have escaped his knowledge. Was he to infer from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary that he was now satisfied the grievances of our Indian fellow-subjects had been removed? It was one thing to say that a grievance on a particular point had been put right; but another thing that all their grievances had been removed. He was certain that the position of our Indian fellow-subjects in the Transvaal was still a subject of dissatisfaction to the Government at home and had been the subject of remonstrance. If he was wrong he would say nothing further, but he believed he was right in saying the position of the Indians in the Transvaal was not satisfactory. He would not, however, labour the matter further, beyond expressing the opinion that it was our duty to keep a constant eye on what was going forward in South Africa. The true remedy would be the granting of responsible government, and until that was granted we should keep our eye on what went forward and not confine ourselves so closely to the one question of Chinese labour as to shut our eyes to all the other things that were constantly going on against the interest of the Transvaal and ourselves.
  MR. SPEARraised a question which he said closely affected a large number of his constituents. He hoped that if the Admiralty persisted in a large reduction of men in the dockyards they would accomplish that reduction as gradually as possible, and thereby minimise the sufferings of the labourers and avoid the disorganisation of labour generally in the particular districts. He recognised the importance of economy, and ventured to submit that the reduction of shipbuilding necessary in the interests of economy should fall on the private yards rather than on the dockyards. He fully recognised the importance of the Admiralty keeping in touch with the private yards and giving them a part
  1788
  of the work so that in times of crisis they should have a larger field in which to deal with the requirements of the Navy. But it was important, in the interests of the Government and the country, that our dockyards should be considered as the first source of supply both of new construction and repairs. All must recognise the importance of attracting to the dockyards the best workmen of all classes, because if there was a reduction in those workmen the status of the men would be lowered and the Navy would suffer in consequence. It was sometimes asserted that ships could be built cheaper in private yards than in the dockyards, but that had not been conclusively proved, and he did not believe that dockyards, carefully supervised and well managed, could not effectively produce hips and carry out repairs. This was a matter of very serious consequence to a large number of his constituents, and he appealed to the Secretary of the Admiralty to ensure that where a reduction was necessary it should fall rather upon the private yards than the dockyards, and thereby maintain the efficiency of the Government yards.
  The hon. Member also referred to the question of remounts or the Army, and stated that two years ago he suggested the importance of bringing into closer touch the buyer of Army horses with the breeder. They all knew the difficulty experienced during the late war of procuring the requisite number of horses. The advent of the middleman was bad both for the country and the producer. He suggested that the representatives of the Army should nominate a veterinary surgeon in each district, to make a register of horses suitable for Army purposes. Then a central place should be arranged to which the horses could be brought for inspection by Army buyers. This was a matter for consideration because the question of the native production of Army horses in the country was becoming a serious one. With the advent of motor-cars there was a lesser desire to breed horses than before, and, unless breeders were brought into direct communication with Army buyers there would be great difficulty in obtaining horses at all in the future.
  *MR. GEORGE WHITEdrew attention to the administration of the Education Department. He asser ed that the Act of 1902 was acknowledged by educationists on both sides of the House to be disappointing in the provisions made for the system of secondary national education, and, therefore, they were not surprised to find that progress under the Act had also been disappointing and left much to be desired. He would not have raised the question but that he felt that the Board of Education was to some extent responsible for the slow progress that had been made. The Board of Education some time ago issued regulations which dealt with some very important matters. First of all they apparently desired to prescribe a high minimum fee; they further wished to limit to a certain extent scholarships, and to establish a separate set of governors for these municipal secondary schools. Those interested in the spread of secondary education found a serious barrier to progress in these regulations. In the first place they aimed a blow at what seemed to be one of the main features of the Bill, that of co-ordination between elementary and secondary education. The idea that the Secretary to the Board of Education should give large powers to headmasters of schools, separate from the authorities of the district, was in itself a serious disadvantage, as it was regarded by the authorities as a desire on the part of the Government to set up something in the same line as the existing grammar schools. He was glad to acknowledge that the fresh circular letter which had been issued to some extent minimised the evils they saw in those regulations, and he believed that the circular had been issued in deference to widely expressed opinions of the authorities. The hon. Member desired an assurance that the spirit of that circular would not only be adhered to by the Department but that its scope would be considerably widened. Other circulars issued by the Board of Education had been partially withdrawn owing to the guiding hand of the private schoolmaster, and he feared the same pressure might be brought to bear upon this circular. He was jealous of anything that might deprive elementary schools of the benefits of secondary
  1790
  education. The Board of Education should give authorities support in this matter rather than place obstacles in their way, and he asked that this circular, which they welcomed, should not only be acted up to, but that the Board should leave local authorities larger discretion in the matter of fees and scholarship. He was jealous of anything that would interfere with secondary education in connection with the poorer children. Genius could always take care of itself, but genius was rare. There were, however, thousands of children who could be passed on to secondary schools with great advantage to themselve; and to the nation. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet might trust the education authorities not to pass on to secondary schools pupils who could obtain no benefit from them; ne ther need he be afraid that the schools would be made a great burden on the neighbourhood. Rather it should be the business of the Board of Education to give the education authorities a spur in this matter and not obstruct them in any way. He should, therefore, be glad to hear that this circular, which they all welcomed, would not only be acted up to, but that its scope would be extended in order to leave, local author ties a large amount of discretion in regard to the matter of fees and scholarships.
  As to elementary education he wished to congratulate the hon. Baronet on the step which he had taken some months ago in regard to children being removed from school to church for religious instruction. He was afraid that there, again, pressure was being brought to bear on the Board of Education, because the hon. Baronet departed to some extent from what was a very just and fair position. He should like to know what the persons who took the chi dren from school to church desired. They had already under the Education Act, which he regarded as a standing injustice, the power to appoint teachers, paid solely out of public funds, of the denomination to which the school belonged. That, he believed, was a great injustice to the nation, but surely they might then be content to leave the religious instruction in the hand, of the teachers. Further, the clergymen could give religious

  1791
  instruction in the schools themselves if I they desired. But now they were; face to face with this difficulty that, in the view of certain clergymen, religious instruction could only be given within the four walls of the church building. This ought to be resisted by the Board of Education. Such action would disorganise the schools to a very large extent, especially as the teachers were not allowed to accompany the children, which was a rule that the Board of Education very properly laid down. It was very difficult to determine where this proceeding would end. He saw the other day that a discussion took place in the Education Committee at Dover, where it was claimed that the children were to attend church on twenty-two Saints Days a year. They were extending the Saints Days to a very considerable number. He believed that his Roman Catholic friends were satisfied with less than a third, and he hoped the Board of Education would watch this development, and would not allow it to be carried to the extent it now was. The first object of the Board of Education should be the education of the children, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would remain firm in the original position he took up.
  With regard to what he considered the somewhat lax attitude of the Board of Education in regard to the adequate provision for the children in various districts, it was perfectly notorious that, prior to the Act of 1902, a great differentiation was made between Board schools and denominational schools, but when the whole of the maintenance was placed on the rates it was generally supposed that even justice would be meted out. The Board of Education, however, allowed schools to be maintained which were absolutely unsuitable to the purposes of education. He could give many cases in all parts of the country which would justify the position he had taken up, but he would confine himself to a few cases in his own locality. He would refer the hon. Baronet to King's Lynn. It was perfectly well known that the educational provision there had been exceedingly deficient for years, and if the Board of Education had done its duty a school board would have been started there long ago, Two years had elapsed since the
  1792
  Act came into force, and yet at this moment it was a positive fact that there were children in King's Lynn who could not find a place in any school in the town, and even if they did it would only be in a school which was in an insanitary condition. He was not bringing these charges against the denominational schools only, The other schools were also affected; but where they had a chairman of the education committee declare that a boy who left school at twelve made a better man than if he had remained until he was fourteen, and that an ignorant workman was better than an educated workman, the Board of Education should see that the education committee was kept up to its duty. In one school in his own city the building was condemned as a fire trap. It was decided to build a new school and statutory notice was given. Now, however, plans were submitted for making alterations which, it was admitted, would not make the school suitable. The Board of Education, instead of adhering to their original decision that a new school should be built, were now troubling about these plans. He felt, under the existing Act, parents who bore equal burthens should not have their children forced into insanitary schools because they happened to live in a particular part of the city, whereas children in another part were properly accommodated At Stow Bedon, a small parish with only fifty-five children, the clergyman was unable to maintain the school under the old Act, and leased it to the school board, but when the Act of 1902 came into force he declined to renew the lease, and the education authority at once applied to the Board of Education for power to build a school, which was given. Those connected with this transaction were, however, subjected to the most unwarrantable persecution. A small holder of land was given notice to quit, because the squire told him he had been one of the ringleaders in favour of the new school, and the woman who gave lodging to the new teacher had also had notice to quit. Yet the Education Department now supported the reopening of the denominational school in this tiny parish. He asked if that were done in the interests of education or in the interests of economy? What had these parties done

  1793
  to merit such consideration from the Board of Education? His object in bringing forward these matters was simply because he desired that the Board of Education should walk firmly and recognise that education was the first claim upon them. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet was deeply interested in the cause of education. He desired to do the very best he could to carry out the work of his Department, but pressure was being brought to bear from one quarter and another which often caused him to swerve from the right and straight path. It was necessary, therefore, that the Board of Education should know that when they promoted education rather than denominational interests they would have the support of hon. Members who sat on that side of the House.
  MR. KEARLEYreferring to the discharges in Government dockyards, said that when the question was raised on the Estimates the answer given was neither definite nor satisfactory, but it was agreed to delay pressing the matter until Vote 8 was reached. In view of the fact, however, that during the last few days a large number of additional notices of discharge had been issued, he thought the House were entitled to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to state definitely the policy of the Admiralty in the matter. When a somewhat similar state of affairs arose at the Sparkbrook Factory, Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, with the result that the discharges had been stayed on the ground that the policy was to be thoroughly inquired into by the Defence Committee. Thereupon his colleague in the representation of Devonport also wrote to the Prime Minister, but he had not succeeded in getting a similar gratifying announcement with regard to the dockyards. If the policy as it affected Sparkbrook was to be inquired into before further discharges were carried out, why was not a similar course adopted in regard to the dockyards? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the House what policy the Government had in view which necessitated these large discharges. The discharge of nearly a thousand men in Devonport in the
  1794
  depth of winter seemed exceptionally cruel, especially as the Government were showing their sympathy with the unemployed in other parts of the country. Were the Government really determined to give up new construction in the Government yards, as seemed to be foreshadowed by the First Lord's statement that new construction could be more cheaply carried out in private yards—a view with which he was glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, a former First Lord, did not agree. He had no desire to pick a bone as between private and Government yards, but as representing these men he felt bound to speak for them, especially as the Dockyard Expense Accounts showed that buildings in the Government yards were, at any rate, not more costly than in private yards. He desired to call attention to the case of the man Welsford, who met with an accident two years ago, which entirely incapacitated him. He had been awarded temporary deferred pay for six months, but when he came up for survey, instead of being allotted his pension, as he ought to have been, the matter had been deferred from time to time pending a decision of the Government medical men as to whether he was totally incapacitated. It was most unreasonable on the part of the Government to hold this man in suspense as to their ultimate decision. He knew Welsford to be of the highest integrity. He had visited him every time he went into the West, and he feared that before the Admiralty arrived at any decision the man would be dead. He was absolutely and totally incapacitated, and he (the hon. Member) thought he was suffering from softening of the brain. What was the difficulty in the report of the medical men? They did not assert that this man was not incapacitated.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIR ALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood bridge): They do.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he had never heard that before. He understood there was one obstinate man who could not give an opinion one way or the other. He hoped the hon. Member would state where the difficulty lay.
  *MR. DUKEsaid the question of dockyard discharges was a very serious one. Dockyard towns were dependent for their prosperity, and to a large extent for their existence, upon the policy of the Admiralty, and it did not appear at the present time that the Admiralty was exercising that discretion with regard to discharges which ought to be shown by a large employer of labour. The sudden removal from employment of hundreds of men without any previous notification caused a great deal of trouble and dissatisfaction in the district concerned. He did hope the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to tell the dockyard populations, through the House, what the intentions of the Admiralty were, and to assure those engaged in the dockyards that discharges would not be made in great numbers without some reasonable notice, so that the men could have the longest possible period to prepare themselves for the change. If the Admiralty would pursue some policy of that kind instead of ordering sudden discharges in hundreds, they would relieve themselves of some of the unpopularity which seemed to be not without reason at the present time, and also remove a great deal of difficulty from the local authorities. The mayors of both Plymouth and Devonport were in London about the matter, and his hon. friend might be assured that the policy pursued was causing in these towns a feeling very near to consternation.
  *MR. PRETYMANacknowledged the entirely reasonable character of the remarks which had been made, and was sorry there should have been a necessity for the strictures upon the Admiralty. The principles which were enunciated by the hon. Member for Tavistock and the hon. Members who followed him, were exactly those which had been followed, namely, that it was foreseen, as must have been foreseen by everyone in the House, that when there came a reduction in the programme of naval construction there must be discharges as business shrank, and from the moment it became evident that this was necessary the Admiralty considered how those discharges could be carried out in a manner to cause least inconvenience
  1796
  and distress. What the Admiralty then decided to do was to spread these discharges gradually over as long a period as possible, and that they should not in any one of the dockyards exceed twenty-five in the course of a week. He could not, however, ask that the Admiralty should be absolutely acquitted, because through an unfortunate misunderstanding there was some confusion in transmitting these distinct orders some time ago to the Admiral-Superintendents, and owing to this misunderstanding these notices were given by the Admiral - Superintendents at Portsmouth and Devonport entirely contrary to the intention of the Admiralty. Immediately this was discovered instructions were sent to all Admiral-Superintendents in the sense he had indicated, that no discharges were to be carried out, if it could possibly be avoided, at a greater rate than twenty-five per week. It was the object of the Admiralty to give the utmost possible notice, and to carry out these discharges in a manner which would cause the least inconvenience.
  As regarded the question between dockyards and private yards he would only say that, while repairs were more cheaply carried out in the dockyards, new construction as regarded cheapness, had been slightly in favour of private yards. But at the present moment ships were being constructed practically at equal cost in both yards. There was no intention to abandon new construction in the dockyards, and what was being done was as far as possible to adjust the total amount of new construction required as between the dockyards and the private yards. Bather the major part would go to private yards, of which the area was very much greater than the dockyards; but there would be a certain amount of new construction available for the dockyards. When the amount of new construction was reduced there must be less employment available. There was only this consolation, that I every sovereign which was not spent in the dockyards meant a reduction of taxation to that extent, and consequently that money was available in other directions. That meant, therefore, not an actual putting out of employment of

  1797
  labour, but simply a displacing of labour, and although displacing of labour was extremely unpleasant for those displaced at the time, yet, regarding it over the whole area, it did not mean that there would be less employment of labour throughout the country as a whole.
  As regarded Welsford, that was a very simple matter. Under the regulations a full pension could only be given, as the hon. Member himself had stated, in cases of total incapacity; and whether a man was or was not totally incapacitated, whatever the opinion of private individuals might be, could only be decided by medical professional opinion. They could not get away from that. The hon. Member might be absolutely right—and he and the hon. Member for Plymouth had taken great interest in this particular case—but the Admiralty could not be bound by the opinion of hon. Members, however active, they must take medical opinion, and medical opinion had been unable to certify that Welsford was totally disabled. Another examination was going to be made, and he might say that the facts which had been stated to the House were not quite accurate, because the last suggestion made came direct from the Admiralty to Welsford, and they asked whether he would prefer to be examined by a doctor in London or by a doctor at Torquay, and he had informed them that he would prefer a doctor at Torquay. That examination was now about to be carried out. He might say that every consideration had been shown, but until they got the medical certificate that he was totally disabled they were unable to grant the amount of his pension.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that after the passing of the Education Act of 1870 many working-class parents were ready and prepared to forego any wages their children might earn if provision could be made for the children receiving something more than the common standard of education in the ordinary elementary schools. Provision was made for higher education, and it was made cheap and effective for such parents as cared to forego the earnings of their children. That went on until the year 1895 when as a result of the Cockerton judgment it was decided that
  1798
  school boards in making this provision were doing what was quite wrong and it was declared illegal. School boards had since been ruled down to purely primary work of the ordinary standard. He did not think that the Government were really sorry to find that judgment given, because it provided them with an opportunity to curtail the work of education beyond the standards adopted by the great school boards for the common people. The Government endeavoured in 1896 to bring in a great measure of co-ordination and to build up anew upon the wreck of the school board movement caused by the Cockerton judgment. In 1902 the Government brought in what was from a great many points of view a great Bill by which they desired to systematise and link together every grade of education. Part III. had been in operation for some considerable time, and Part II. was intended to build anew the work which had been destroyed by the Cockerton judgment. It would be impossible for him to emphasise too strongly the criticisms which his hon. friend had passed upon the Board of Education in carrying out Part II. in respect to higher education. It was the first step that counted here, and if they went wrong and provided for a particular class as against the whole community; if they built secondary schools as a thing for a special class of the community and not for the whole nation, then they would have done something to cut more deeply the social differences which marked our people, and would have missed an opportunity of obliterating those differences and making the various classes of the community know each other better than they did at the present time.
  In endeavouring to add this superstructure to the educational system the Board of Education issued regulations for secondary schools, and the whole purport of them was to set up a social select class of school especially for the middle and professional classes, and not to be used by all classes of the community irrespective of their social position. He held in his hand a document which would do more harm to the well-being of this country than he could possibly describe, not only educationally Hit socially. Time was so short that he

  1799
  could only call attention to three points in these regulations to prove his statement that they were now building up schools for a class, notwithstanding the pledge which the Government had given that they would build these schools for the whole community, and set up secondary schools in their proper place in the national scheme of education. The first was Regulation 16, which told the great municipalities of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and London that if they wanted to set up a secondary school under the Act of 1902 and the Government gave them power, they would not be permitted to manage that school themselves. "The school must be conducted by a body of governors." That was at variance with both the spirit and the letter of the debates in 1902, in which the House was urged—and by no one more than the Prime Minister—to trust the local authorities, to whom practically all the power was to be given in this matter. The constitution of the governing body had to be such as the Board of Education could approve. He did not mind so much the approval of the Board of Education being necessary, but he should have thought that in consonance with the speech of the Prime Minister in 1902 the Board of Education should have left these great municipalities free to set up their schools in the meantime in the way that seemed best to them. If he were a member of a local education authority he would certainly not give to one of these secondary schools any part of public money unless, they conformed to the scheme of management which the authority for the locality thought wise and proper to impose. That would be carrying out the spirit of the Act of 1902. The regulation did not do that. The Board of Education, under another regulation, laid it down that these municipalities could not be allowed to have a secondary school in which the fees were less than £3 a year. In regard to the higher grade schools, where the fees had been sixpence or ninepence a week, what right had the Board of Education to insist that a working man for the education of his child should pay £3 a year? Such a minimum at once transformed the provision of secondary education in industrial and working-class communities into a class institution. It
  1800
  was a preposterous regulation, and he regarded it as a gross piece of impertinence on the part of the Board of Education to dictate to great municipalities the fees they should charge in schools largely supported out of their own rates. In the poorer part of St. George's, East Bristol, a high-grade school had been built up and the working-class people there had paid the fees with great difficulty, but now the Board of Education came down upon them and said that they must pay £3 a year. The third and last point was equally grave, and in this connection he pleaded for the child of the working-class parent who wished to give him the secondary education which it was understood he was to get. The regulation said—
  "The Board of Education will be prepared to sanction the remission of fees to individual scholars on sufficient grounds."
  But that was a very objectionable way of dealing with the matter. What right had the Board of Education, on the strength of that general regulation, to say, as they were saying, to the great municipalities that they should not have in their secondary schools more than twenty-five per cent, of free places? If the great municipality of Bolton was to have all the powers which they were promised according to the discussions in 1902, they would provide free places to save children from the factory and the workshop. Why should they not be permitted to do that? Who were the Board of Education to say that there should only be one place out of four free? He spoke with considerable indignation on this matter. These regulations were fatal to the working-class higher-grade schools. They were not justified by anything in the Act of 1902, and they would do most serious harm to the development of secondary education. He believed, however, by way of a death-bed repentance, that the Board of Education had issued a letter in which they climbed down a little. He hoped they would continue to climb down, and that they would leave the local authorities, subject to the veto of the Board of Education, where it was understood in 1902 they would be left—absolutely unfettered to carry out secondary education, not as a mere class or exclusive provision, but as a provision for the whole community.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he desired to refer, presently, to the topic on which the hon. Gentleman had spoken with so much indignation, but he would deal first with the matter of church attendance, which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. The hon. Member had said that the Board of Education had given way under pressure. He was not aware that the Board had departed under pressure from the position taken up. The Board came to the conclusion that the law of school attendance should be interpreted in a particular way, and to that interpretation they had adhered, and would continue to adhere. It was true that pressure was put on the Board of Education, but it was from every quarter—by the hon. Member's own friends, by Church people, by the advocates of secondary schools, by the ratepayers, and by the teachers. If pressure from all sides could keep a Government Department straight then the Board of Education had a better chance than any other Department. In regard to Stow Bedon he was not surprised that in the long tangle of the history of the controversy another hon. Gentleman should have gone wrong. The school was recognised as a certified efficient school and the Board had no choice in the watter. But no public money, whether from rates or taxes, had been or would be spent upon it. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying, whether under pressure or not under pressure, that the Board had allowed a school to be established contrary to the provisions under which schools should be established under the Act of 1902. He hoped the hon. Member would accept the assurance that the school of Stow Bedon was no expense to the ratepayers or the Exchequer. With regard to the schools at King's Lynn and Norwich, he undertook to make inquiry and see whether the provision of school places was inadequate.
  Coming to the question of secondary schools, he thought the indignation of the hon. Member for Camberwell was not altogether justifiable. The Board of Education held, first of all, that a secondary school should fulfil the conditions as to education which a secondary
  1802
  school was intended to fulfil. It was no compliment or benefit to the working classes to enable them to send their children to a school which was a secondary school in name, but an elementary school in reality, and the Board had been at some pains to define what a secondary school should be. They had to consider what the financial prospects of a secondary school would be when established, as well as the question of efficiency. Such schools, unless they were endowed, must depend upon the Parliamentary grant, the rates, and the payments of fees by the scholars; and the Board considered that, in the majority of cases, fees should be paid, The Board had never insisted on a particular standard of fees, but they endeavoured to determine the amount of the fee by the conditions of the locality, and the incomes of those who wished to send their children to the school.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the Board had not written to Bolton insisting that there should be a minimum fee of £3.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that no doubt n many cases they had suggested a minimum £3 fee; and he recollected pressing that last year on a local authority. He had heard since that the £3 fee had been paid and that the school was flourishing. Then, as to free places, which, of course, were independent of scholarships which might be conferred, they had the right to say that it would not be safe, having regard to the economic condition of a school, that more than 25 per cent, free places should be allowed. The charge of audacity or impertinence was wholly irrelevant, for, since Government money was granted, the Board had the right to satisfy themselves that the grants were made for the purpose which secondary schools ought to serve, and to insist that those grants should not be made except to schools which were economically as well as educationally efficient.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked why the Board could not trust the locality.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Board had had a longer experience even than a

  1803
  municipality or the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had complained that the Board required schools to have a body of governors, and had taken full control out of the hands of the local authority. But what was everybody's business was generally nobody's business. As a rule they could not govern a secondary school through a great county council or a large education committee of thirty of forty persons, and, in the result the government would very likely lapse into the hands of the permanent officials. Unless they established some such body of person, some of whom might be extraneous to the local authority, to whom the headmaster might submit get the work done as satisfactorily as it ought to be done. But the Board of Education had no desire to withdraw from the great local authorities such power as they ought to have over their secondary schools.
  *MR. YOXALLsaid it was very unsatisfactory to find that
  the Secretary to the Board of Education had completely misunderstood their complaint. They complained that upon the higher-grade school—the modern type of secondary school—the hon. Baronet wished to impose the old form, the cramping form, of the endowed grammar school. That was their complaint, and to justify it the hon. Baronet took refuge in a definition of what the Board of Education thought a secondary school should be. In his own city of Nottingham an attempt was made to establish three modern secondary schools, but the regulations which were imposed by the Board of Education prevented it being done. On account of the unsatisfactory reply, he begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
  And, it being Seven to the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, put that Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 93.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Campbell, Rt. Hn JA(Glasgow)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. HnHugh O

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Worc.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chapman, Edward

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn. SirJ(Manc'r

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

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finlay, SirR.B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Forster, Henry William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bigwood, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bill, Charles

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin & Nairn

  Bingham, Lord

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Bond, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Denny, Colonel

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Dewar, Sir T R(Tower Hamlets

  Gray, Ernest(West Ham)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gretton, John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bull, William James

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hain, Edward

  Butcher, John George

  Dixou-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell, RtHnSir H. E (Wigt'n

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.

  Maxwell, W. J H (Dumfriesshire

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Skewes-Cox., Thomas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Moore, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stroyan, John

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Turnour, Viscount

  Knowles, Sir Lees.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Welby, Lt-Col. A CE (Taunton)

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lawson, John Grant (YorksNR.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Whiteley, H (Ashton and Lyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col A. R.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Younger, William

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Elibank, Master of

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Ellice, Capt. EC (SAndrw's Bghs

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bell, Richard

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Benn, John Williams

  Cremer, William Randal

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Crombie, John William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blake, Edward

  Crooks, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boland, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Brand, Hn. Arthur G.

  Delany, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Brigg, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gilhooly, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Gladstone, RtHnHerbert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Duffy, William J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dunn, Sir William

  Grant, Gorrie,

  Burns, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  1806

  1807

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Roche, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  M'Kean, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hammond, John

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Rose, Charles Day

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Walter

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mooney, John J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sheehy, David

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Newnes, Sir George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Norman, Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willams

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R (Northants

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

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

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Johnson, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

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

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Jones William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomson. F. W. (York, W. R.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Tillett, Louis John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

  Toulmin, George

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Ure, Alexander

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Mara, James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lament, Norman

  O'Shee, James John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Langley, Batty

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Rea, Russell

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Levy, Maurice

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh. N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders'd

  Lundon, W.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

  Young, Samuel

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall and Mr. Shackleton.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY [29TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  1."That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st March, 1906."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,630,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution:—
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid a reduction had been moved with respect to this Vote in Committee, but there was so strong a feeling that the Army was greater than the country could afford that he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of voting for a reduction in the number of land forces of the country. Nobody could say we were justified in expending this enormous sum on the Army, and hon. Members on both sides agreed that there ought to be a substantial reduction both in the number of men and in the expenditure. Without further delaying the House, he begged to move a reduction of 10,000 men.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '221,300,' and insert '211,300.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  Question proposed, "That '221,300' stand part of the said Resolution."
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid there had been a great many experiments made upon the Army during the last few years, and there would probably be a good many more in the course of the next few years, but he thought the Empire could not be in a better state a regarded military security, for such experiments to be made, inasmuch as it had within its borders a force of some 400,00 men of military age who had been trained to modern warfare under modern conditions, and upon most of whom the Empire could rely in case of a national crisis. He hoped that before those men ceased to be of military age and available for service there would have been hammered out some scheme for providing the Empire with an efficient Army. He entirely agreed as to the necessity for the speedy re-armament of the Artillery. Our guns were undoubtedly outclassed by more modern inventions, but he seriously deprecated the alarmist talk which one heard in and out of the House as to the present field guns. He had had experience of those guns at both ends of the range. He had seen the excellent practice made by our gunners, and he had also, with his men, been the target at which those guns were aimed. During the South African War General De la Rey turned on the British troops some of the field guns he had captured, and, so far from those guns being absolutely obsolete and ineffective, he could assure hon. Members that, had the Boers burst their charges as well as they aimed and worked the guns, the then target would not have had the present opportunity of addressing the House. But he was not going, on the strength of a year's campaign in South Africa, to pose as an expert on War Office reorganisation. There were two or three points, however, upon which he had gained some little experience, and with regard to which he could speak with a certain authority. One of those points was the improvisation of troops in a time of national crisis. He believed that in such emergencies there would always be forthcoming a very large number of recruits
  1810
  of a much superior class to those who offered themselves in time of peace. He had under him in South Africa public school men, University graduates, men of position and influence at home, and men accustomed to field sports, and that, he believed would be the class of men who would come forward in all times of national crisis. For such men a much shorter period of drill was sufficient than was necessary with ordinary recruits who had never been accustomed to obey or to command. One great disadvantage he found was that while many of these men were accustomed to the use of a shot gun, hardly any of them were accustomed to the use of the rifle. He could see no reason why every boy in the country should not be trained in the use of the rifle, and he regretted there was no provision in that direction contained in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
  Further Consideration of Second Resolution deferred till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.

  SUPPLY [29TH MARCH] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Second Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,630,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to call attention to certain matters connected with the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico. It was not his intention to go into the case of wages, piece-work, pay, or any of the labour conditions in the ordinary sense of the word, which had sometimes been raised on this Vote, and his reason for avoiding that class of subjects was that

  1811
  it was absolutely impossible to make them plain to the House of Commons owing to their technical character. There was a very simple mode of treating them, however, which was that the heads of the departments should take council freely, in the same way as ordinary employers, with the persons in their employ; that they should meet them freely and fairly, hear what they had to say, and thus become acquainted with all their demands. Although he was favourable to the Government manufacturing their own materials in this way, he was not favourable to the Army manufacturer. He did not believe that the heads of these departments should be soldiers, but civilians. He doubted the wisdom of making the soldier make his own clothes. Very often the soldiers placed at the head of these establishments had not the knowledge of the ordinary methods of dealing with labour which the private employer possessed. Two years previously that question was raised by the hon. Member for Clitheroe. At that time friction had arisen between the head of the Manufacturing Department, who was a soldier, and the workpeople and a petition had been refused by him on some rather pedantic ground. At the end of the wrangle, which lasted some time, it was suggested that the civilian Ministers responsible to this House might possibly receive the deputation which the military head of the factory had declined to receive and hear what the facts were. Through the good offices of the present Postmaster-General that deputation was received, not only by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but by the Secretary of State, and a great deal of good was done thereby. At the present time there was a difficulty with regard to Particulars, or, in other words, the basis upon which the actual wages of the workpeople were earned—a principle which originally existed in Lancashire, but which had extended first to Yorkshire, and now to all places where labour of this kind was employed. He thought it would be an advantageous thing if the civilian Ministers in this House would receive those officials who represented the workpeople and who were able to speak for them upon this matter.
  1812
  He moved the reduction to-day, however, on the ground of other conditions of labour which obtained at the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico. A year ago he had a controversy with the newly-appointed Financial Secretary with regard to the ventilation and undue heat prevailing in these works. There had been the death of a girl named Alice Wright, and the death had drawn a good deal of attention to the condition of the works. Although at the inquest it was found that Alice Wright did not die of the effects of heat, but of a weak heart, it was brought out in evidence that a greater number of women fainted under the conditions of heat prevailing in that factory than in similar factories of private firms. It was impossible to produce a private workshop in which the percentage of women fainting at their work was as high as at the Army Clothing Works at Pimlico. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, or the Army Council, or whoever might be responsible, for having at last called in the aid of the women inspectors of the Home Office in regard to this matter, a thing which had been urged by hon. Members and those who thought with hon. Members for years. There could be no doubt whatever that they were the proper persons to advise the Government in a case of works of this kind where a large number of women were employed. The reports of these women inspectors should now be made public and the Government should tell the House whether they now proposed to carry out the recommendations which had been made in those reports. A very deplorable state of things still existed at the Pimlico works. The water poured through the roof and the heat during some periods of the year was excessive. There was undoubtedly a very great deficiency in the number of pressing irons, and the result was that the women were forced to wait in the gallery where these pressing irons were heated and where the heat was exceedingly great, and it was in that gallery where most of the fainting had occurred. The conditions also of the large pressing room continued to be exceedingly bad, and in some parts of the building there was a total want of ventilation. It was principally to give

  1813
  the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of telling the House what the reports of the women inspectors were and what he hoped to be able to do as a result of those reports that he moved to reduce this Vote by the sum of £200.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£4,630,000,' and insert £4,629,800.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That '£4,630,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. SHAGKLETONsuggested that the paid officials of the organisation to which the workmen in the Army Clothing Factory belonged should be allowed to approach the heads of the factory on questions of pay and labour. He said he had for the past twenty-five years taken an official part in one of the largest organisations of pieceworkers, numbering something like 100,000 people, and had hid a good deal to do with the calculation of prices. Not one in 2,000 persons engaged in cotton weaving could calculate their own prices, and the difficulty of an outsider understanding how to work out the prices was therefore obvious. In Lancashire the calculations had to be done by paid officials who had received a special training. The officials of whom he spoke were the proper men to calculate the piece-work, and if they were allowed to do it much of the grumbling that was now heard would cease. The Government once a year received the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress in order that the complaints of the workers might be laid before them, and that being the case surely it was not too much to ask them to concede a minor point by receiving the men appointed by the workers in the Government workshops for the purpose of hearing their grievances. The longer he was in the House the more he felt that that was a true solution of the difficulty, and would obviate the necessity of many of the discussions there. He was glad that lady inspectors were allowed to visit the factories, but it was important that they should be allowed to go there when they pleased and not simply at the will of the officials. Ventilation, too, was important. In all Government factories
  1814
  there should be some approach to the standard for purity of air that obtained in the weaving sheds, where the system of ventilation gave nearly 3,000 cubic foot of air to each person.
  MR. CROOKScomplained that the practice had lately grown up of having officers' uniforms made at Pimlico and of bringing in Array pensioners to do the work, to the detriment of the skilled tailoresses who might do it. He also called attention to the insufficient wages paid to some of the unskilled labourers in the Government clothing factories.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT)said that the hon. Member for Woolwich was under a misapprehension as to the making of uniforms. Certain coats were made in the factories by men taken in for the purpose of qualifying as Army master tailors. They were skilled tailors and remained in the Clothing Department some eighteen months to obtain a certificate. From time to time the opportunity occurred in the factory of undertaking special work which women were unable to do, and which no one in the factory but those skilled tailors could do. They were put on what had been erroneously called the outdoor staff. The outdoor staff did exist, but only to this extent, that under certain conditions they were allowed, as a special indulgence, to have certain work to do at home. He was sure that the hon. Member opposite would approve of that practice. That was the outdoor staff, and there was no other. He thought the hon. Member would agree that at any rate there was no grievance in this particular case.
  With regard to the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite, there was no man in the country or in this House who more thoroughly understood this subject than he did. He had for over thirty years past interested himself in the Royal Army Clothing Department, and he had, on many occasions, found fault where fault was to be found, and he had pointed out shortcomings wherever he felt that they existed. He was glad to

  1815
  gather from what he had said upon this occasion a sort of qualified approval at any rate of what had been done during the past twelve months to meet same of the objections to which he had referred. He had hoped for a more cordial expression of approval, because for the past twelve months every possible effort had been made to do all that was necessary to see that the workpeople in the Pimlico factory worked under proper conditions of sanitation, ventilation, and comfort, as well as receiving fair rates of wages. He did not believe that there was a better ventilated or more healthy factory in the country than that at Pimlico. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had seen many factories in his own county, and he invited him to go and see this factory at Pimlico. He could assure him that he would be most cordially welcomed, and if, with his great experience, he could make any suggestions they would receive the most careful consideration.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Can we have the inspectors' reports?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that at the present moment he was dealing with the hon. Member's argument that the factory at Pimlico was badly lighted and unhealthy. He could assure the hon. Member that there was not a finer equipped factory in the country. There were about 600 people working on one floor, and he defied anyone to see them at work without coming to the conclusion that they were working happily and contentedly. If they considered the conditions under which those people would have to work upon similar employment in other factories then there was no comparison either in regard to the conditions or the wages they would receive. The right hon. Baronet had told them a story about a large number of women fainting. Of course women fainted in other places besides factories, but he denied that a larger percentage fainted in the factory at Pimlico than in other factories, and he repudiated the suggestion that they fainted because of the condition of air in that factory. It was incorrect to say that the girl whose death had been mentioned had died in consequence of the condition of the atmosphere.
  1816
  The doctor at the inquest gave evidence to the effect that the girl was unfitted for any employment at all. It would have been a hard measure to get rid of her for that reason, and she had not been sent about her business. The atmosphere had been tested by a Home Office official, and it was found that the factory was thoroughly well ventilated. Factory inspectors had been invited to visit the factory, not on special days or at set hours, but when they pleased. Their visits this year had resulted in no complaint of any kind. That was all he had to say upon that point.
  The right hon. Baronet had objected to the system and principle upon which the rates of remuneration were fixed, which he said was unsatisfactory and unfair.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not allege that. What I said was that there appeared to be some difficulty about allowing the workpeople to be represented by a deputation.
  MR. SHACKLETON: The point is that any settlement of a dispute about wages is best effected through the officials of the workpeople's trades unions.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that any representations of the workpeople as to grievances would always be most carefully considered, but he could not assent to the proposition that any outside body should be permitted to intervene between the workpeople and the superintendent. He bad a great respect for the trades unions, but he believed that it was not in the interest of the workpeople or of their employers to permit the intervention of an outside body.
  MR. SHACKLETON: But in this case it is their own union.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the workpeople could represent their grievances through the proper channel, and they could come to the highest authority and have their complaints considered.
  MR. BELL: What is the good of a trades union under those circumstances?
  MR. SHACKLETON: Am I to understand that the hon. Member objects to a trades union choosing their own representative to place their grievances before the heads of the department?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No. What he did object to was that representative should be chosen by anybody but those concerned in the grievance, and that the statement of the grievance should be put forward by anybody except those concerned in it. If there were a grievance the person concerned in it should state it themselves or by deputation. He did not say that there were no circumstances an conditions under which a trades union other than the union of those employed in a factory could approach his right hon. friend. He did not lay down that proposition. As the hon. Member had stated, his right hon. friend was going to receive a trades unionist deputation in a few days. If there happened to be any large question affecting wages generally he was quite sure that his right hon. friend would not object to receiving representatives from any authoritative trades union.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Let us understand clearly where we are. What we ask for is that the workmen and the workwomen in the employ of the Government at this factory shall be allowed to choose their own official, who need not be a worker in that factory, but who may understand the case as well as he workpeople themselves.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I quite understand what the hon. Member means.
  MR. SHACKLETON: But do you admit that right?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Then you do not admit one of the first principles of trades unionism.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he did not admit that it was a desirable thing to allow the men and women workpeople in Government employment to
  1818
  choose the officials of a trade union, who might not be workers in a Government department, to represent their grievances. Some of the women in this factory were receiving 32s. a week, and their average wage was over 20s. In conclusion, he had only to say that they welcomed any suggestion which was for the improvement of the factory. They had no object except to do the very best they could for the factory and those engaged in it. He invited the right hon. Baronet and other Members who wished it to go and see the factory for themselves, and he was convinced they would agree that it was one of the best factories in the United Kingdom.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked if there would be any objection to placing the report which the inspectors made to the Home Office before the House when it was received, because then they would know exactly the conditions reported upon, and they would be able to form their own conclusions.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I would welcome that course, but it is evident that I cannot commit the Home Secretary in this matter. I have never seen this report or heard anything of it, and still less have I heard of any complaint. I cannot pledge my right hon. friend in the matter, but if there be such a report I have no objection whatever to the course suggested.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he had had a great deal to do with the trades unions and he quite understood and sympathised with the desire of every employer to be spoken to by his employees without the intervention of any one outside. But where large numbers were employed it was evident that there were those who thought their personal relationship with their employer would be affected and prejudiced if they made individual complaints, however justifiable their complaints might be. These suspicions were enough to make them choose somebody outside, such as the trades unions, to represent them. Employers of labour in the House must admit that where large bodies of workmen were employed it was

  1819
  expedient in the interests of the workers that they should choose their own representatives. If a private employer recognised this why should not the Government recognise it? Why should the Government be the one exception in the country? What reason of public policy was there that this elementary right of trade unionists should be denied to Government employees? It could not be for electioneering purposes. Electioneering reasons and political pressure could be brought to be r entirely apart from this Everybody who knew anything about, trades, unions in this country knew that one of their elementary rights was to claim, and properly so to negotiate through their own representatives in all disputes with their employers. He thought the Government was very badly advised indeed to continue to resist this elementary right of trades unionists of the country.
  MR. BELLsaid he could not allow the remarks of the Financial Secretary to pass without making some protest. He had always regarded the Government as a body who ought to set a fair and good example to all employers of labour in the country. But by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks it was shown to be far and away behind most employers in the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had no objection to trades unions. In fact, he respected them; but it was only a farce to suggest anything of the kind when he declined to have anything to do with their representatives. No one would have objections to trades unions if they had regard to the functions for which they existed. He had been a trades unionist for twenty-seven years, and he was glad to say he found employers in the country of quite a different opinion from that of the hon. Member opposite. He had within the last two or three weeks been sent for by employers, which showed that the employers desired rather to deal with the representative of the men than with the men themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had not convinced him that if employees of the Government put forward their own cases they would not be subject to victimisation. They had seen too many instances of the kind to believe any such statement. He did not suggest
  1820
  that the heads of the Government Departments would countenance such a thing, but there were too many officials between them and the workmen, and those officials were the people to find paltry and insignificant excuses to get rid of the employees if they dared to make complaints. He protested against the attitude of the hon. Gentleman in declining on behalf of the Government to discuss with or receive the official representatives of those people. If the hon. Gentleman found himself in any Court he would engage the best counsel he could get to state his case. What was good for him was good for the workmen. The workmen had a perfect right to engage whom they thought proper to represent them in any questions between them and their employers. If the right hon. Gentleman was to press this on the lines he had taken up he would press it to an absurdity, because the taxpayers were the real employers and the workmen would then negotiate with their employers—the taxpayers—direct. The hon. Gentleman was simply the agent of the taxpayers in the office he held, and the employees, he submitted, had the same right to appoint their agent. The attitude of the hon. Gentleman would create a good deal of disaffection amongst the employees for which he would be responsible after his observations that night.
  MR. BENNtook exception to the remarks which had fallen from the Financial Secretary to the War Office with reference to the relations between the War Office and their employees in the clothing factories. To say that those who served the Government in the humblest walks of lie and who were unable to voice their grievances were to be debarred from employing somebody else to state their case was one of the most monstrous things he had heard in the House of Commons. He was sure the statement must have arisen from want either of experience or of information. On the London County Council it was found extremely convenient to have the case stated by those who had time and ability to put it in the briefest and most practical form, and, in the light of such experience, he hoped the hon. Member opposite would reconsider his decision and allay

  1821
  the dissatisfaction which his policy must cause. He spoke as representing a constituency with a very large number of Civil servants, and it would be a very great grief to them to hear that their grievances were only to be put forward by those immediately concerned in any workshop or factory. He hoped this policy would be reconsidered at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid that in the case of piecework, the piece-worker was not allowed to get assistance to see whether the piecework he was working on was right or not. If a piece-worker was dissatisfied, and was not able to get somebody in whom he had confidence to advise him, there would never be any content in the Government factories. The Financial
  Secretary had not given any answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Clitheroe. He thought they ought to allow some outside assistance to these people, who were not either accountants or auditors. They ought to have some one chosen by themselves in have some one chosen by themselves in whom they had confidence. He thought they ought to have the factory inspector's report. They wanted the report that was furnished to the Home Office. He thought it ought to have been furnished to the War Office. He considered that the House was entitled to a copy of it, and he hoped they would have it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 137. (Division list No. 94.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickinson, Robert, Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon. Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O

  Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Balcarres Lord

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Lawson, Hn. H. L W (Mile End

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant (YorksN. R

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Bigwood, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bingham, Lord

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Bond, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brodriek, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bull, William James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton. Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Wore

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Helder, Augustus

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants)

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Moore, William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Renwick, George

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Percy, Earl

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, John Ward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Randles, John S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir W. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Turnour, Viscount

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

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

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayter, Rt Hn Sir Arthur D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hell, Richard

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Benn, John Williams

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Boland, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Johnson, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Roche, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Burns, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kilbride, Denis

  Seely, Maj. J. E B. (Isle of Wigl t

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Sheeny, David

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, F.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Crombie, John William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tillett, Louis John

  Crooks, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andr'ws Bghs

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Young, Samuel

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Charles Dilke and Mr.

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to call attention to a matter which had already been before the House, and in

  1825
  regard to which the answers given were not satisfactory, namely, the purchase of 20,000 suits of clothes at 11s. 9d. each by the Clothing Department of the War Office, and the sale of 10,000 at 5s. 6½d., and 10,000 at 5s. 7frac12;d. each. That showed an enormous loss, and the only reason given was that too many suits were bought and that there was no room to store them. It was stated in answer to a Question that the number of Boer prisoners had been over-estimated. That was rather an unsatisfactory Answer considering that the whole of the transaction took place within the last twelve months. If the War Office had no place to store the clothes, it surely would have been cheaper to hire part of a warehouse to store them than to waste 40 per cent. of the price by selling them. He could not help thinking that the reason for disposing of the clothes was not want of accommodation, but really because the War Office, being anxious to reduce the Estimates for one year, sold the clothes at a sacrifice. He supposed there was a possibility of the War Office expenses having to be found by another Government next year, and that those responsible for the War Office at present were anxious to show that their management had been very good. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the War Office would give a more satisfactory explanation than had yet been offered of this large loss of money. He further desired to know if the Home Office inspector's report on the Army Clothing Factories would be published, even if it was a bad one. He believed it was already in print and that some hon. Members had seen it.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It has not been seen by me, and it has not come before the Department yet.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was a great pity that the hon. Gentleman should not have seen it The officials connected with the Clothing Department should have seen it. He believed the report did not give so beautiful a description of the state of things as the hon. Gentleman gave in his speech. He was informed that the suits which were sold at 5s. 7½d. each were bought by a Mr. Moses, and that they were being retailed at 7s. 6d. The placing of clothing on the market in that way was conducive to sweating,
  1826
  and that was a form of dumping which should be avoided.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that after what had occurred in connection with some other departments of the War Office they were naturally very anxious to watch all matters of this kind. They had recently been told that the War Office sold oats at half the contract price when they were actually buying from the same contractors in the same month the same kind of article at full price. He agreed with the last speaker that the clothing transaction had been largely due to the desire of the present occupants of the War Office to make their accounts seem better than they really were. They had used appropriations-in-aid in an extraordinary way to make an apparent reduction of their total demand in the Estimates. What he wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office was whether it was a fact that the War Office had been putting out tenders for clothing at the same time as they were selling off surplus stores of a similar kind at more than fifty per cent. below the contract price. If that was the case, it was clear that it had been done to gain a little financial credit at the expense of the taxpayers. If the War Office store houses were full it would surely have been better to hire an outside warehouse in which to place the 20,000 suits than to give fresh orders for similar clothing during the coming financial year.
  *MR. BARRANsaid there was further evidence, outside anything that appeared in the Parliamentary Papers, that there was want of co-ordination between the different departments of the War Office. It was not an uncommon thing for large quantities of material, such as serge, to be sold at very low prices, while in the ordinary course of events similar material was being purchased for other departments at the same time, or would certainly be required in a short space of time. He could tell the Financial Secretary of sales by public auction which had taken place, after being advertised, within the last few months at which hundreds, if not thousands of pounds worth of goods had been sold of the type, or near the type, which manufacturers, if not contracting for

  1827
  now, would probably be asked to contract for shortly. There was no reasonable excuse why the goods which were being sold should not be employed instead of that which would be bought later on. This was not a matter that was occurring at the present time only. It was a matter of notoriety that great bargains could be picked up at these War Office sales. The only valid excuse was that the goods were unfit, but if that were advanced the question would arise how goods which were unfit were allowed to pass into stock. Yesterday he had asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent disclosures, he would press through Parliament a Bill for the prevention of secret commissions. It would perhaps not be right for him to say anything with regard to the War Office in connection with any matters which were not under consideration at the present time. He wanted to point out that in the general trade of the country where matters of this kind cropped up, a wise person would take the requisite steps to prevent anything of the kind occurring in the future. Without wishing to reflect on any particular individual or firm, he would say that certain branches of commerce were honeycombed by such practices.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that unless the hon. Member could connect his remarks with some particular case connected with the Vote, he was not in older.
  *MR. BARRANsaid he was sorry to have travelled beyond the limits of discussion. He had merely wanted to throw out a suggestion. There were many matters of wastefulness in connection with the War Office which were well known throughout the trade in this and other cities, and which needed far more careful attention than they had received in the past.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that in almost all the Departments there had been enormous waste in connection with the South African War. Of his own knowledge he knew that large numbers of Army regulation boots, similar to those which were being taken in at this moment at the Clothing Depôt at about 11s. per
  1828
  pair, were being sold retail at from 5s. 6d. to 5s. 9d. per pair. He presumed, from what he knew of the trade, that the gentlemen who purchase these boots must have given from 2s. 6d. to 3s. per pair for what cost the War Office three-and-a-half times that money. He was assured that these goods were sold at the ruinous prices mentioned because they were offered in such large quantities. If tenders for smaller quantities had been asked for better prices would have been obtained. Moreover, these were goods not of a perishable nature, and could have been transhipped from South Africa at a small cost, and issued to the troops here. There had undoubtedly been a waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and he intended to put one or two Questions to the Secretary of State for War on this matter in order to elicit the facts as they had been presented to him.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he thought it was an understood thing that the sales in South Africa were not to be dealt with at this time.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that that only referred to the Report of the Auditor-General.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he greatly regretted, indeed he protested, against the suggestion, the innuendo, that was conveyed throughout the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds. The hon. Member referred to secret commissions and said that that was a direction in which a wise person would insist on reform. Surely every man should have a fair trial and not be condemned until he was impartially heard. When the hon. Member could point to one single example in which the contract branch of the War Department had had even a suspicion attached to it, then, and only then, he would be entitled to talk of the exposure of the War Office. He should be greatly surprised if the hon. Member was at any time in the future able to point to a single instance in which the contract branch had been in any way to blame. In reply to the hon. Member for Lichfield, he had to say that, if there was a report of the inspector on the Royal Army Clothing Factory, he had not seen it, but, if it

  1829
  were the case that it contained a suggestion of some shortcomings, he would at once proceed to make any amendment that was possible. The hon. Member could not imagine that the War Office had any other object in view except that the factory employees should pursue their occupations with all comfort, convenience, and happiness, consistent with their duty to the taxpayers. The hon. Member also referred to the sale of 20,000 suits of clothes which were purchased in connection with the war in South Africa.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid his information was that the suits were made at a much more recent date than that.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTreplied that the hon. Member's information was entirely incorrect. These suits were made for war purposes, and they were sold because, the war having come to an end, there was no further use for them. They were purchased for the purpose of clothing Boer prisoners, and our own soldiers when they obtained their discharge. It was very regrettable that any public property should be sold at a loss. But owing to the conditions of war the Government had to pay an inflated price for what they required, partly because they were the principal purchaser. The end of the war came very suddenly, and then not only did the principal purchaser cease to buy, which in itself would affect the price, but the Government became the principal seller, and it was not surprising if under such conditions the price fell even 50 per cent. The cost of storage accommodation was very great, and he was not anxious largely to increase it. They had retained four years supply and sold 20,000 suits. The clothes which were purchased for the Boer prisoners were not, unhappily, of that size which was suitable for the troops of the British Army—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"]—they were a great deal too large. The 3,000 suits which they were now buying were of a special size which was running short. He assured the House that when they sold they got the best price that could be obtained; they invited no fewer than 123 firms to tender, and took the highest tender.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if the hon. Member could give the House the date of the purchases.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that they were all purchased before the termination of the war. He had no knowledge whatever of the purchases of the boots.
  *MR. LEVYsaid that if there was not corruption at the War Office, the idea was Very widely prevalent that justice was not done to all the people who wished to tender, and that goods were accepted from certain firms or individuals at exceedingly high rates, and frequently goods were purchased in quantities largely in excess of the requirements of the War Office and were then sold at prices much under cost. It was a fact that in the early stages of the war very large contracts for khaki drid were given to merchants in the City of London, not one yard of which was made by the firms who received the contracts, whereas orders were refused to the manufacturers who made the khaki drill and supplied the merchants who received the contracts and themselves tendered at a much lower price than was paid by the Government.
  MR. LYELLsaid the first criticism which could be levelled against the War Office was that they did not know the Value of a good storekeeper. Was it conceivable that the War Office could not have obtained storage and insurance for these 20,000 suits at a tenth of the cost which the sales realised? He did not level at the War Office any charge of corruption or any insinuation that they had received private commissions in connection with these sales. But he did charge the War Office with a want of business capacity which would have brought a private firm into the Bankruptcy Court in a few months.
  *SIR A. HAYTERsaid the Financial Secretary to the War Office had omitted one very important fact in connection with the surplus clothing. When soldiers were discharged they were offered a suit of clothing or, instead,

  1831
  a gratuity in money. Looking at human nature as it was, the majority of the men took the money and not the clothing. Hence much of the surplus supply of clothing. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that, whenever a sale of public property took place, the officer who conducted the sale should give a certificate that the prices obtained were the best that could be obtained in the circumstances, had been given effect to in the case of the sale of this clothing?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he did not know of the existence of such a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee, but he had the assurance of his right hon. friend the Secretary for War that he approved of the recommendation and would see that it was carried out.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 95.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. C.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn Col. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W, (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Bigwood, James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bill, Charles

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lieut. Col. A. R.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bull, William James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Butcher, John George

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gretton, John

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Greville, Hn. Ronald

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'hampton)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E,

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moore, William

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Renwick, George

  Tuff, Charles

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Sadler, Cel. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Percy, Earl

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, John Ward

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Randles, John S.

  Stroyan, John

  Younger, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayter, Rt Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Blake, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Mara, James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Caldwell James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reddy, M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Crombie, John William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crooks, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Delany, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Russell, T. W.

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Emmott, Alfred

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  M'Crae, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Kean, John

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Stevenson, Francis S

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sullivan, Donal

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  1834

  1835

  Tennant, Harold John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Toulmin, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Warner and Mr. J. H.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Whitley.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  And it being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, proceeded to put forth with the Questions necessary to dispose of the Report of Vote A of the Army Estimates.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the
  year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  To which an Amendment had been proposed [30th March], to leave out "221,300," and insert "211,300."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  Question put, "That '221300.' Stand part of the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes 173. (Division List No. 96)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John. C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Halsey, Rt Hn. Thomas F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cubitt, Hn. Henry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, Sir. Jas. (Staffords N. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bigwood, James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bill, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bingham, Lord

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoult, Joseph

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bond, Edward

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brassey, Albert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bull, William James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Butcher, John George

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

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Keswick, William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Chamberlayne, T (S'thampton

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Leveson,-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stroyan, John

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Pease, Herb. Pike, Darlington)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Tuff, Charles

  Lowe, Francis William

  Percy, Earl

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Turnour, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E H (Sheffield)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Webb, Colonel Wm. George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wortley, Rt Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Sackville, Col. S. G Stopford

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Younger, William

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Moore, William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N E.)

  Delany, William

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

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutchinson, Dr Chas. Fredk.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellice, Capt. E. C (SAndrw's Bghs)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bell, Richard

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

  Benn, John Williams

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark,N E

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Black, Alexander William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joyce, Michael

  Blake, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brigg, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Burns, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Caldwell, James

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Guest, Hn. Ivor Churchill

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hammond, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harcourt, Lewis

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Crae, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Kean, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Crombie, John William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Crooks, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Moss, Samuel

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Murphy, John

  1838

  1839

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tennant, Harold John

  Norman, Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W,

  Roche, John

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, J Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Mara, James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Shee, James John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Partington, Oswald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wilson, J W (Worcestersh, N.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Young, Samuel

  Priestley, Arthur

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Rea, Russel

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Sullivan, Donal

  Warner and Major Seely.

  Reddy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution"
  The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 155. (Division List No. 97.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Gardner, Ernest

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Guest. Hon. Ivor. Churchill

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Denny, Colonel

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bigwood, James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Bill, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bingham, Lord

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doughty, Sir George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W)

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Brassey, Albert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Butcher, John George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Finbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Keswick, William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Moore, William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spear, John Ward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stroyan, John

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lee Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tuff, Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Turnour, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Randles, John S.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ratcliff, R. F

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Woff, Guatav Wilhelm

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Worsley-Taylor, Hemy Wilson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Younger, William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Viscount Valentia.

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Scott, Sir. S (Marylebone, W.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Lamont, Norman

  Bell, Richard

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Black, Alexander William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Blake, Edward

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Levy, Maurice

  Boland, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lundon, W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Grant, Corrie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hammond, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Caldwell, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Crae, George

  Cameron, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Kean, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mooney, John J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Moss, Samuel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

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

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Crombie, John William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Norman, Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Johnson, John

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Delany, William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  1842

  1843

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Toulmin, George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Robson, William Snowdon.

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Roche, John

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  O'Dowd, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Malley, William

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Mara, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Price, Robert John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Woodhouse Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Young, Samuel

  Rea, Russell

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Barran and Mr. Soares.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Tennant, Harold John

  Resolution agreed to.

  Resolution, which upon March 23rd was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, read, as followeth—
  "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster, Mr. Pretyman, and Mr. Bromley Davenport do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this measure had had a very eventful
  1844
  Parliamentary career. It was introduced in 1892, and took six or seven years to pass through the House of Lords, during which it underwent an enormous amount of amendment. Marine insurance had this peculiarity: for 500 years it had stood as part of the common law of the country without a single Act of Parliament dealing with it. The reason was obvious. In dealing with a constantly changing subject such as shipping, it was impossible to lay down on the Statute-book any fixed principles.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, being returned,
  MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1905.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL (continuing)regretted the interruption which had taken place, as he was anxious to conclude his remarks on the Second Reading so that the Bill could go to a Select Committee. It was obviously a measure which could not properly be dealt with in the ordinary way by the Standing Committee on Law. It was a codification Bill, involving a knowledge of common law,

  1845
  marine insurance, and the question of transferring it from the common law to statute law. If hon. Members thought, that by such a measure the law would be made more definite or clear they were making the greatest mistake of their lives. He was prepared to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee, who would probably take as many years to revise it as were taken in another place.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said the Bill was one to codifiy the law relating to marine insurance, and he agreed with the hon. Member that it was not a measure suitable to be dealt with by an ordinary Grand Committee. Very careful attention would have to be given to every clause, and he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member that it should go to a Select Committee if the House would allow the Second Reading on that understanding.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the charge upon the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may
  1846
  be required to make good liabilities arising out of the default of the Public Trustee or his officers appointed under any Act of the present session to provide for the appointment of a Public Trustee and Executor, and to authorize the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of the salaries and other expenses payable in pursuance of such Act."

  NURSES REGISTRATION COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the expediency of providing for the Registration of Nurses.
  Ordered, That Dr. Robert Ambrose, Major Kenneth Balfour, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Dr. Hutchinson, Mr. Mount, Lord Morpeth, Mr. Pierpoint, Mr. Tenuant, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, and Sir John Batty Tuke be members of the Select Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, that Five be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
South Suburban Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Accrington Corporation Bill (by Order); Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Malvern Water Bill. "To confirm and legalise the construction of certain waterworks constructed by the Urban District
1694
Council of Malvern for the supply of Water to their district; to authorise the Council to construct additional waterworks for the supply thereof; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Birmingham Corporation Bill; Brentwood Gas Bill; Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Croydon Gas Bill; North Sussex Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table.
Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act, to regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland." [Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for uniting the ecclesiastical parish of Holy Trinity, Portsea, with one or more contiguous parishes, and for authorising and carrying into effect an agreement between the Bishop of Winchester and the Admiralty for the sale of the church and vicarage house of Holy Trinity, Portsea, and for the disposal of the purchase money and the endowments of the benefice; and for other purposes connected therewith." [Holy Trinity, Port-sea, Bill [Lords.]
Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Exmouth (four); Leicester; Liverpool; and

  1695
  members of the London County Council; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Earl's Court; Hayle; Newport (Essex); and South-sea; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  WINES IMPORTED.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 27th February; Mr. Gibbs]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]
  ALIENS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 13th March; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
  NAVY (VOLUNTEER RESERVE).
  Copy presented, of the Regulations' the Civil and Administrative Rules, and the Acts providing for the Constitution of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Areas, Population, and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland [by Command], to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 3, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum on the state of the African Protectorates administered under the Foreign Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Publication of the "New Ireland Review."
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been
  1696
  called to the publication and free circulation of a work called the "New Ireland Review" by the Department of Agriculture; if he can state the entire cost of this work to the public; and whether, in view of the statements on page 13, he will explain why it should be circulated at the public expense.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. The "New Ireland Review" is neither published nor circulated by the Department.

  Appointment of Miss Duffy as Crochet Lace Teacher at Monaghan.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland has refused to sanction the appointment made by the County Monaghan Committee of Technical Instruction of Miss Brigid Duffy, as crochet lace teacher, in view of the fact that Miss Duffy held a similar position with the approval of the Department under the County Galway Committee of Technical Instruction from 1901 till 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Water Long.) The Department refused to approve of the appointment of Miss Duffy because she was not qualified for teaching fine Clones crochet, which is an essential for county Monaghan. The work upon which Miss Duffy was engaged in county Galway was chiefly raised crochet.

  Farms for Evicted Tenants.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have got un-tenanted land on hand in any part of the country; and, if so, whether they are prepared to provide for Thomas M'Cormack, Timahoe, Queen's County, an evicted tenant, who has already notified his willingness to accept an equivalent farm elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No, Sir, but if the Commissioners should acquire untenanted land in this county the claims of evicted tenants will be considered.

  Reinstatement of Lord Lansdowne's Evicted Tenants at Luggacurran.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any communications have passed between the Estates Commissioners and Lord Lansdowne relative to the reinstatement of his evicted tenants at Luggacurran, Queen's County; and, if so, whether he can state what is the result of those negotiations, and also the number of evicted tenants who remain unreinstated on the Luggacurran Estate of Lord Lansdowne.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An inspection of this estate is proceeding, and the inspector has been instructed to inquire and report as to the reinstatement of evicted tenants. I have no information as to the number of the latter.

  Tenant Purchasers in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the actual number of persons who have purchased their farms in county Longford under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, and whose agreements have been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Advances have been sanctioned to 313 persons.

  Science Training Classes in Ireland.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Part II. organisers science classes, which deal with the programme for sixth and seventh standard pupils in boys' schools, or any courses for training female teachers in the special programme in elementary science in girls' schools have been held in the counties of Mayo or Galway; whether the Commissioners of National Education intend to make provision for the training in these programmes of the teachers of these counties, for the majority of whom no technical schools are available; and, if not, whether they will have these programmes withdrawn.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of
  1698
  National Education intend that in districts generally where no technical schools are available for training the teachers any science instruction is to be given to the sixth and seventh standard pupils in boys' and girls' schools respectively; and, if so, what provision is to be made in these districts to give the teacher the necessary training to enable them to impart such instruction.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No such classes have been held in Mayo or Galway, but teachers from both counties have attended classes of the kind in Dublin. No special arrangements have been made for these counties, but, as I have already stated, the head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained to continue the training of teachers in science. It is not intended to withdraw the programmes for the sixth and seventh standards. These programmes were promulgated tentatively, and managers are strongly urged to submit for approval syllabuses to suit the particular requirements of their localities. Object-lessons on suitable subjects are considered sufficient in all standards in schools having only one teacher, or not having teachers specially qualified in science.

  Sitting of Sub-Land Commission at Bantry.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience the small occupiers of land in the Castle-town Berehaven district have been subjected to by the action of the Sub-Land Commissioners, who recently held a sitting of their Court at Bantry, thereby causing some of the occupiers referred to to travel forty miles to have their cases heard; whether he has received a resolution from the Castletown Berehaven District Council in connection with this matter; and whether in future he will take steps to have a sitting of the Land Commission Court held at Castletown Berehaven.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The sittings of the Sub-Commissioners are fixed by the Land Commission, with due regard to the general convenience of all

  1699
  the parties interested, and the time at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners. No complaint was made at the recent sittings at Bantry of the nature referred to in the Question, and I have no power to intervene in the matter as suggested. The Land Commission, however, are always prepared to meet, as far as is possible, the expressed desire of the various parties, and I have communicated to them the resolution of the district council.

  Legalising of Colonial Marriages in this Country.
  GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the communications received from the Governments of the self-governing Colonies relative to the legalising in this country of marriages lawfully contracted in other parts of the Empire.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The communication on the subject which I have received is a despatch from the Government of the Australian Commonwealth, and I will lay that despatch upon the Table of the House.

  Issue of Transvaal Loan.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table further correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Transvaal Government as to the issue of the Transvaal Loan; and whether he will include the draft Ordinance forwarded to the Transvaal on August 22nd, 1903, for sanction by the Legislative Council.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) All the material correspondence up to January, 1904, on this subject has been published in Cd. 1895. I do not propose to publish that which has taken place since, as it was of a strictly confidential character. The publication of the draft Ordinance would not, in my opinion, add any material information, but I shall be happy to send a copy to the hon. Member if he desires to see it.

  Negotiations with Colonies on Subject of Retaliation, etc., previous to 1902.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any records in the Colonial Office of negotiations with the Colonial Ministers on the subject of retaliation and colonial preference previous to the Colonial Conference of 1902.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I refer the hon. Baronet to the Prime Minister's Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire.

  Lost Dogs removed by the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that out of 27,994 dogs removed by the Metropolitan Police from the streets of the Metropolis, 23,261 were taken to the Dogs Home, Battersea, and 4,181 restored to their owners by the police, will he state in what districts the 552 dogs which have not been accounted for were captured, and whether it is to be assumed that they were destroyed by the police.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I fear I cannot undertake to inform the hon. Member in what districts these 552 dogs were captured, but they are accounted for as follows:—505 of them escaped from the police, thirty-five were destroyed by the police, and twelve died while in their hands.

  Free Railway Passes for Members of Parliament.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the British Colonies and on the Continent, Members of Parliament have free passes on the railways; whether he will approach the carrying corporations with a view to arrange that Irish Members shall have free passes to and from the House of Commons to Ireland during the session.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are aware that in some countries free passes over the railways are

  1701
  given to Members of the Legislature. It is not proposed to take any action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

  Accident to Live Stock on Midland Great Western Railway—Failure to hold Board of Trade Inquiry.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an accident to live stock occurred on the Midland Great Western Railway Company's line in November, 1903; and whether he will find out the reason given or explanation for the omission of holding the usual Board of Trade inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am not aware of any accident of the nature described on the Midland Great Western Railway in November, 1903, but the hon. Member is perhaps referring to an accident on the 6th of that month to a cattle train on the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, as he recently

  Colony

  Imports.

  Exports.

  1896.

  1904.

  1896.

  1904.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Canada

  16,017,263

  22,621,164

  5,352,029

  10,624,221

  New Zealand

  8,060,360

  12,741,310

  3,995,092

  6,315,090

  Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900—Rules.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state what are the results of the Board of Trade's action in issuing the Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 616, on August 8th, 1902, pursuant to the Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900; how many places where tow-roping and propping were practised have been prohibited under Section 2 of the above rules; how many engines and tenders have been fitted with power brakes under Section 3; how many stations and sidings, where shunting operations are carried on, have been lighted as per Section 4; how many places where point rods and signal wires have been covered over or removed under Section 5; how many engines have been provided with convenient places for tool
  asked for a copy of the report thereon. The circumstances of that accident did not seem to call for investigation, and an inquiry was not therefore ordered by the Department.

  British Trade with Canada and New Zealand.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and New Zealand in 1896 and 1904 respectively; and of the exports of British goods to those Colonies in the same years.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The declared values of the imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and New Zealand respectively, and of the exports thereto of British and Irish produce from the United Kingdom in 1896 and 1904 were as follows:—
  boxes and fire-irons as per Section 7; whether look-out men are always employed to give warning to men employed in relaying or other similar dangerous occupations on the permanent way as per Section 9; and whether applications have been received by the Board for extension of time as per Section 10; and, if so, will he give the names of the companies applying and the reference of such applications.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) It is not possible to state in detail what has been the action of the railway companies in carrying out the statutory rules in question. The Board are ready, as the hon. Member is aware, to make inquiry into cases where it is alleged that the rules are not observed. Three companies have, under Rule 10, applied for, and have been granted, some extension of

  1703
  time for complying with certain rules, viz., the Metropolitan District, and the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Companies in respect of Rule 5, and the Brecon and Merthyr Railway Company in respect of Rule 3.

  Perthshire Motor-Car Order—Omission of the Village of Bridge of Earn.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Lord-Advocate on what ground the village of Bridge of Earn was omitted by the Secretary for Scotland from the scheduled areas in the recent Motor-Car Order for Perthshire; whether he has received memorials on the subject from the parish council and school board showing that the road through the village is one much frequented by motors, and that considerable danger is apprehended from the absence of any limitation on the speed of motors passing through the village; whether a limitation of speed is imposed in other and smaller villages on the same and similar roads in Perthshire; and, if so, whether, in view of the feeling in the locality, he will amend the Order accordingly and impose a maximum rate of speed within the village.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The memorials referred to are received at the Scottish Office. The question of restricting speed at Bridge of Earn, among other places, was considered by the late Secretary for Scotland, who had a personal conference with the road authority of Perthshire before issuing the order limiting speed at various points in the county, and whose decision was that sufficient ground was not made out for including the road at Bridge of Earn in the restricting order. The present Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for departing from that decision, which was reached after careful and repeated consideration, and with an intimate knowledge of the county. I may remind the hon. Member that the road authority are entitled to erect warning signposts at points where no speed limit is imposed if they think it necessary.

  Lift Accident in a City Hotel—Precautions for Public Safety.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the
  1704
  Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent inquest held before Dr. Waldo concerning the death of a young woman who lost her life through falling down a lift in a City hotel; and, in view of the recommendation of the jury that all lifts should be provided with locking gates, and in the case of the Metropolis be subject to inspection by the London County Council, will he communicate with that body on the subject, or take such other steps as he may consider prudent in the interest of the public safety.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have not received any report of the inquest referred to in the Question. The safe construction, arrangement, and fencing of lifts is a matter which is carefully attended to in factories, warehouses, and other places coming under the Factory Act; but there are no powers, so far as I am aware, to deal with the matter in other places such as hotels and offices. Legislation would be required for the purpose, which I am afraid I cannot promise to undertake; but any proposals for giving local authorities the power of dealing with the matter would receive my careful consideration.

  Motor-Car Drivers—Convictions for Failure to produce Licences.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the wording of Section 3 (4) of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, will he state whether any persons holding a licence for driving a motor-car have been summoned for not producing such licence when demanded by the police; and, if so, will he state the number of prosecutions, and the number of convictions obtained; and, to meet the case of motor driver licence-holders who do not happen to have the licence in their personal possession at the time it is demanded, will he consider the expediency of instructing the police to enter prosecutions in those cases only in which the motor driver's assertion that he has taken out a licence has proved on inquiry to be false.

  1705
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My information extends to the Metropolitan Police District only. In that district, between the 1st January, 1904, and the 28th February, 1905, 230 summonses were taken out by the Metropolitan Police against drivers for failing to produce their licences, and these resulted in 216 convictions. The hon. Member will hardly expect me to issue instructions to the police which would be in contravention of the plain words of Section 3 of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, which makes it an offence to fail to produce the licence on the demand of a constable.

  Condition of Roads in Regent's Park.
  MR. BRYCE: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the Office of Works has been called to the unsatisfactory state of the roads in Regent's Park, the roughness of whose surface has been long complained of by cyclists and by persons driving in the park; and whether steps will be forthwith taken to bring them into a better condition.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The state of these roads has been engaging the attention of the First Commissioner for some time past. He hopes to be able to effect some improvement.

  Adoption of Recommendations of the Bradford Committee's Report.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet formulated any definite scheme to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Bradford Report; and, if so, will he state the particulars or say when they will be furnished to the House.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Memorandum which is in the hands of hon. Members to-day gives the desired particulars.

  Electro Peat-Coal Manufacture.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have appointed an expert to inquire into
  1706
  and report upon the electro peat-coal manufacture; and whether it can be successfully carried out in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department have inquired into certain processes for the manufacture of peat fuel by electricity, but, in the absence of information as to the particular process referred to in the Question, they are not prepared to express any opinion as to whether it could be successfully carried out in Ireland.

  Transit in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what the Government propose doing to carry into effect the Resolution recently unanimously passed by the House to amend, modify, and cheapen transit conditions in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the Resolution, and I am unable to give an undertaking that the Government will introduce such legislation.

  Beet Sugar Cultivation and Manufacture in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the results accruing to German agriculturists from the cultivation of sugar beet, he will advise the Department of Agriculture to establish an experimental farm for the purpose of testing beet sugar culture and manufacture in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to this Question is in the negative, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 23rd instant.†

  Mountmellick Petty Sessions—Town Com missioners and Fines for Drunkenness.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what portion of the fines for offences of drunkenness imposed at petty sessions, Mountmelliok, go to the Town Commissioners; and whether he will instruct the police to prosecute all charges of drunkenness
  †See page 940.

  1707
  committed within the township in the town Court instead of at petty sessions.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the case of fines imposed at petty sessions for drunkenness committed within the town one-half of the penalty goes to the Town Commissioners and the other half to the police. The police, however, prosecute at the town Court in all cases of offences of drunkenness committed by residents of the town, in which case the entire penalty goes to the Commissioners, and they prosecute at petty sessions in those cases only in which the offender resides outside the town or his residence is not known. This arrangement, which has been in operation for the past twenty years, is regarded as equitable, in view of the concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the offence of drunkenness which exists between the town Court and petty sessions Court.

  Case of Police v. John Munnelly.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the minute made by the magistrates at Belmullet Petty Sessions on February 27th, recording their decision in the case of the Police v. John Munnelly, and in the case of John Munnelly v. the Police.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In each of the three cases referred to in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 27th instant,† the order of the magistrates, as recorded in the Order Book, is "Dismissed on merits." In a fourth case, in which the police prosecuted Mr. Munnelly for using threatening language to one Michael Maguire, the order, similarly recorded, is "Munnelly ordered to enter into recognisances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for twelve months, himself in £20 (Twenty pounds)."

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on the Coyne Estate, Belmullet.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any communication from the evicted tenants on the Coyne Estate, Belmullet Union, county Mayo,
  †See page 1182.
  1708
  on the subject of their reinstatement on the purchase of the estate; and whether the Commissioners have taken any steps to ascertain if the landlord is willing to sell; if not, whether they propose to do so in order that these evicted tenants may be restored to their former holdings or to new and enlarged holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners do not propose to take any special steps with respect to this estate, which has not yet been brought before them for sale, but the applications of the evicted tenants will not be lost sight of, and will be duly considered when a suitable opportunity presents itself.

  Irish Department of Agriculture—Un expended Balances.
  MR. WILLIAM MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to what funds, being the total amounts unexpended of their several annual grants since 1900, is the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland at present entitled.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is assumed that this Question relates to the Department's endowment fund which, however, is made up of capital sums as well as of annual receipts under Section 15 of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899. The unexpended balances of the Department's annual income at present amount to, approximately, £177,000, of which £115,000 is already earmarked for technical instruction in county boroughs and county and urban districts, for sea fisheries, and for buildings at the Royal Veterinary College and at the Munster Institute, in accordance with Section 16 of the Act.

  Appointment of Manager of Lislea No. 1 National School.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what were the local differences which led the National Board to refuse to appoint a local manager, as requested in the memorial of the parents of children attending the Lislea No. 1 National School, county Armagh, instead of the

  1709
  present temporary manager, who resides twenty miles distant from the school; and whether he is aware that the lessee of the school is Mr. R. R. Murphy, J.P.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The local difference referred to was a difference of opinion as to the most fitting appointment to be made. No memorial was received from the parents of the children until after the appointment of the present temporary manager, and the Commissioners saw no sufficient reason to vary that appointment. The case will come up for review within the next three months. Mr. R. R. Murphy is not the lessee of the school. The Commissioners, in whom the school is vested, are themselves the lessees.

  Sale of Soldiers' Effects— Amount Realised since South African War.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual amount realised since the outbreak of the South African War from the sale of soldiers' effects under the Regimental Debts Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The amounts realised by the sale of soldiers' kits, etc., are not recorded separately from other credits due to their estates, and could not be ascertained without examining each account; this would involve an amount of labour which cannot be undertaken.

  Army Boot Contracts—Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a strike is in progress of boot and shoe operatives employed by Government contractors in Raunds in consequence of the employers' violation of the Fair Wages Clause governing contracts; and if he will inquire the cause and insist upon the Fair Wages Clause being observed in all contracts for boots for the use of His Majesty's Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am aware of a strike amongst some of the workpeople at Raunds. I do not understand that the strike is in consequence of any violation of the Wages Clause of the War Department
  1710
  contracts. I understand that the strike is caused by the refusal of certain manufacturers to adopt a schedule of prices which has been agreed to by some other manufacturers. Every endeavour is made to secure the strict observance of the Wages Clause in all War Department contracts. If and when I have reason to believe that the wages being paid are not those generally current in the district (as required by the Wages Clause), I will, in this as in all other cases, cause an inquiry to be instituted at once.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the statement of wages to be paid for Army boot work under Government contracts agreed on in June, 1904, at a meeting of Army contractors and workmen's representatives, signed in September, 1904, by the repressntatives on both sides, and accepted by the War Office at a deputation on 17th November as evidence of the current scale of wages, has been set aside by several contractors who have tendered for, and obtained, contracts, and are offering the work at prices lower than those agreed to, and even below those previously paid; and what steps he proposes to take to secure that the Fair or Current Wage Clause of Government contracts shall be observed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A statement was agreed to by certain of the contractors and signed by their representatives. It did not represent the whole of the contractors in the district, and it was afterwards partially repudiated. It was never accepted by this Department as a statement of wages to be paid. It was merely regarded as some evidence of a desire to arrive at a uniform scale. This was made quite clear at the time to the deputation. If, and when, the Department has reason to believe that the Wage Clause of War Department contracts is being infringed, steps will at once be taken to secure its due observance.

  Expenditure under the Military Works Acts.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War

  1711
  what is the amount spent under the Military Works Acts during the current year; and what is the estimated amount to be spent under these Acts for the ensuing year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1905, will amount to about £3,370,000. The expenditure to be incurred in 1905–6 is still under consideration.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Engineering Department—Enlist ment of Youths.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty authorities are now endeavouring to procure the services of boys and youths under eighteen who were formerly only enlisted as bluejackets for the engineering department of the Royal Navy; if so will those boys and youths be subject, as in the case of boys and youths who enlist as bluejackets in the Royal Navy, to floggings, according to the King's Regulations, and to canings for trivial offences, such punishments to be inflicted by the ship's police and in the presence of all the boys on board ship; and, if so, will the boys and youths thus invited to enlist and their parents and guardians be apprised of the conditions of service in the Royal Navy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): Boys are being entered for training for the artificer branch of the Royal Navy. They are subject to the general rules as regards discipline in force in the Royal Navy. The recruiting pamphlet states the general conditions of service, including the liability referred to in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Now I want to put this plain Question. Are these boys subject to flogging with the birch or cane as in the case of ordinary bluejackets, and is that fact made perfectly well known to parents before the boys
  1712
  are allowed to enter the engineering department? I want to advertise this.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman has already accomplished that, but it has not affected recruiting for the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL MR. SWIFT MACNEILL rose to put a further Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member announced that he wanted to advertise something. This is not the time or place for that.

  Vegetable Rations—The National Antarctic Expedition.
  SIR BRAMPTON GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the National Antarctic Expedition was supplied with Maconochie's vegetable rations; whether these rations, or the greater part of them, proved to be unfit for consumption; and whether the crew of the "Discovery" were in danger of an outbreak of scurvy from want of vegetables.
  MR. PRETYMAN: No rations were supplied by the Admiralty to the "Discovery." Some of the rations purchased by the Admiralty for the "Terra Nova" Relief Expedition were supplied by Messrs. Maconochie. But as regards that ship, there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: As this question affects me personally, may I be allowed to make a statement to the House. No meat and vegetable rations similar to those supplied to South Africa were supplied to the "Discovery." The company did supply a quantity of general stores. The balance not consumed arrived in London in perfect order, and was passed by the Medical Officer of Health. Samples have been exhibited at 165, Queen Victoria Street, for many weeks past, and the bulk may be seen by the hon. Member if he wishes. Independent expert declarations have been received by the company proving the high quality of the goods. No complaint has been received. The whole of the books connected with these

  1713
  particular transactions are open to the inspection of the hon. Member, and every assistance and information will be given to him.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Order, order! This is not a personal explanation.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: I wish to point out that this persistent system of pursuing a firm—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Order, order! Sit down.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to leave me to take care of the order of the House. The hon. Member is now going beyond a personal explanation. If he is not satisfied with the very complete Answer given to the Question, he may add anything relating to the Answer to the Question, but he is going beyond that.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: I fully appreciate the concession made to me, and will only say that I am as anxious as hon. Members for an early discussion, and shall be only too glad if it comes speedily.

  Admiralty Surgeon at Belmullet.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the grounds on which the application of Dr. MacHale, medical officer of Belmullet district, for the appointment of surgeon to the Admiralty in that place, was rejected, seeing that for fifty years the position was held by Dr. MacHale's predecessors as local medical officer; if he will state why, contrary to invariable practice, a doctor living in another part of the country was appointed to the vacancy; and if he will also state the fees now being paid to this doctor and the fees paid annually for the previous ten years; the number of coastguards to be attended; and whether, before appointing the present surgeon, the Admiralty made any effort to have the work done for less than what they are now paying.
  *MR. PRETYMAN: The Admiralty did not consider that Dr. MacHale was the most suitable gentleman for the post,
  1714
  and it has never been the practice to appoint a man simply because his predecessor held the appointment of surgeon and agent. The present holder of the appointment is paid 10s. a visit. Previously the ordinary surgeon and agent's fees of 2s. 6d. per visit were allowed. It is not possible to state the precise amount paid in fees annually during the previous ten years without an elaborate investigation of records, which would involve considerable clerical labour and time. The number of coastguards to be attended at the five stations under the surgeon and agent's charge is thirty. The reply to the last part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  The New Rifle—Re-arming the Infantry.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the new pattern rifle is to be issued to mounted troops only, he can state what steps are being taken with reference to the re-armament of the infantry.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No steps are at present being taken to re-arm the infantry in the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

  Sale of Military Buildings—Comptroller- General's Inquiries.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what replies, if any, have been furnished to the queries of the Comptroller-General respecting sale of buildings and other matters referred to on pages 21and 22, Military Works Account, 1903–1904.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In three cases replies have been sent in accordance with the requirements of the Auditor-General. In a fourth case the reply has been followed by a further query, which is now being dealt with. Replies to the remaining queries await the result of communications with South Africa.

  German Emperor's Visit to Gibraltar.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the proposed visit of the Emperor of Germany and his

  1715
  staff to Gibraltar, only those parts of the fortress will be shown which are open to British subjects; and whether the same rules as to photographing the fortress or any parts of it will also be upheld which are rigidly enforced on British subjects.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: Subject to the Regulations contained in Appendix V. of the King's Regulations, the responsibility rests with the General Officer Commanding concerned, with whose discretion it is not proposed in any way to interfere.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: Am I to understand that greater facilities are to be given to an Emperor who is building a fleet that may be used against us than are given to loyal subjects of His Majesty?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given.

  Employment of Colonial Troops— Allocation of Charges.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cost of the Colonial troops, raised in South Africa for the defence of their own country, was borne by the Imperial Treasury; whether the normal expenses of the King's African Rifles, employed in Somaliland, were defrayed from the fund of the several Protectorates which were not concerned with the expedition on which their troops served; and what is the reason for the difference in policy in these two cases.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The cost of the Colonial troops, specially raised for the war, was borne by Imperial funds up to 31st October, 1901; after that date it was borne by Colonial funds. The normal cost of such colonial troops as existed before the war was borne by Colonial funds throughout, so long as the troops were employed within the borders of the colony. The normal cost of the King's African Rifles employed in Somaliland was borne by the funds of the Protectorates to which the several contingents belonged, except that of the 6th battalion, which was borne by the funds of the Somaliland Protectorate.
  1716
  As the Protectorates are not self-supporting, the ultimate incidence of the whole cost of the Somaliland operations was necessarily upon Imperial funds.

  Salisbury Plain Works.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the total expenditure on buildings and all other works on Salisbury Plain since the land on which they stand was purchased by the War Office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The capital expenditure is about £1,400,000.

  India—The Plague Inquiry.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of state for India whether, in connection with the scientific expedition to be sent out to India to investigate the origin and causes of plague, the co-operation of those in the areas affected possessing a knowledge of the difficulties of the problem from an Indian standpoint will be sought; and whether he will consider the desirability of adding to the Committee an Indian member with special experience of plague.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the object and scope of the inquiry. The administrative aspects of plague were exhaustively dealt with by Sir Thomas Fraser's Commission of 1898–9, and the practical difficulties of combating the disease are familiar to the Indian Government and its officers. The present investigation will be confined to purely scientific problems, in the hope that, if these are solved, advance will be made in the practical treatment of the disease. The composition of the expedition has been settled on the advice of the two scientific societies which have undertaken to supervise the inquiry, and I do not propose to add another investigator to those already selected. The expedition will work in the plague-affected areas, and will naturally avail itself of local knowledge and co-operation in respect of matters within the scope of the inquiry.

  Public-House Licence Duties.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount likely to be derived from the duty on publicans' licences in the current year; whether he is aware that the Treasury has estimated that the imposition of an ad valorem duty on all licensed houses equal to that now imposed upon the smallest houses would produce a revenue of £3,500,000 per annum; and whether, before asking the House to continue existing taxes on necessaries, he will consider the propriety of increasing these duties by making all houses pay at the rate now paid for the smallest houses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The estimate of the amount likely to be derived from the duty on publicans' licences in the current year was about £1,750,000. The second paragraph of the Question is founded on a misapprehension of an Answer which I gave to the hon. Member last year.† I then stated that it was roughly estimated that the total annual value of public-houses, exclusive of hotels, in England and Wales, was about £7,000,000, and that 50 per cent, of £7,000,000 would amount to £3,500,000. This is a simple arithmetical fact, but it by no means follows that this amount of revenue could be obtained by imposing a 50 per cent, ad valorem licence duty on all such houses. Such a tax would, I conceive, certainly extinguish many of the houses, and no estimate has been made by the Treasury of the effect of its imposition on the total annual value of all public-houses.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of increasing the duties as suggested before he brings in his next Budget.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I consider all the suggestions made to me, but I cannot say that I derive great advantage from many of them.

  Arrests on Insufficient Grounds.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 1562.
  1718
  Home Department whether, in view of the number of cases that have recently been brought to his notice of persons being imprisoned against whom no charge was ultimately brought forward or substantiated, and of the increasing difficulty for guilty persons to make good their escape, he can see his way to issue general orders to the police to adopt a system of surveillance while inquiries are being made, and to refrain from indiscriminate arrests until some charge has been made good on reliable evidence.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's); The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that many cases have recently been brought to my notice in which persons have been apprehended on insufficient grounds. On the contrary, considering that the annual number of apprehensions in England and Wales exceeds 350,000, the number of complaints I receive alleging arrest on insufficient grounds is extraordinarily small, and affords a striking testimony to the care and discretion with which the police exercise the powers which the law confers on them. A system of surveillance such as the hon. Member suggests would be quite impracticable.
  MR. LOUGH: But I know of cases that have been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: It is true that the hon. Member has written to me about four cases. Two were Irish—Irish cases are not dealt with by me, but by the Irish Government. One (the Harrods Stores Case) was that of Bradley and Gapp, who got heavy damages from the Stores, and this shows whose fault the arrest was. The other was the Beck case. In this Beck was given in charge by a woman, and the officer could not have refused to take him into custody.

  Home Office and Petitions for the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether in framing new

  1719
  regulations for the Criminal Prosecutions and the Criminal Appeals Departments of the Home Office, as recommended by the Beck Committee of Inquiry, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the practice of receiving secret and so-called confidential information adverse to the persons charged or convicted, and of withholding such information from the persons concerned.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: There is no Criminal Prosecutions Department or Criminal Appeals Department in the Home Office. Those prosecutions which are undertaken on behalf of the Government are conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and criminal appeals, where the right of appeal exists, are matters for the Courts of Law. The hon. Member no doubt refers to the Department of the Home Office which has to deal with petitions which are addressed to the Secretary of State praying for the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in criminal cases. I can only say that it is essential that, in considering such petitions, I should be able to communicate confidentially with Judges, magistrates, and the police. If I could not do so, the number of cases in which I can now advise the exercise of the Prerogative would be seriously restricted.
  MR. LOUGH: Have the recommendations of the Committee been carried out.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Yes, all the recommendations made by the Master of Rolls Committee have been carried out, or are on the eve of being earned out—except one, the reason for which was fully explained to the House.

  Swine Fever in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether, in view of the returns of alleged swine fever in Ireland during the past seven weeks, he will remove the restrictions at present in force against the landing of Irish pigs in England.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES, Huntingdonshire, Ramsey): My Answer
  1720
  must be in the negative, for the reasons which I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County on the 20th ult†. As I then explained, the recent action of the Board was founded upon the fact that in Ireland no precautionary measures are taken against the movement of diseased swine, or swine which may have been exposed to infection, from one part of Ireland to another, and the fact that five outbreaks of the disease have been reported during the present year shows that there would still be a danger of its introduction into Great Britain if the restrictions were withdrawn.

  Building By-laws in Rural Districts.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the fact that the building by-laws are more stringent in certain rural districts than in the county of London, he will take steps to compel their withdrawal, and issue practically uniform reasonable building regulations.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The subject of building by-laws in rural districts is receiving my attention; but I am not empowered to compel the withdrawal of existing by-laws or to issue building regulations in their place.

  Underfed School Children.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Loc I Government Board whether, acting on the powers conferred upon his Department by Section 10 of the Act 42 and 43 Vic., c. 54, he will recommend that boards of guardians be authorised to vote the necessary funds to enable education authorities to undertake, subject to proper safeguards, the provision of meals to destitute children.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am advised that boards of guardians would not be empowered by the section mentioned by this hon. Member to give effect to the arrangement to which he refers.
  † See (4) Debates, exli., 585.
  *MK. KEIR HARDIE: I will call attention to this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

  Irish National Holiday—Railway Traffic Limitations.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, seeing that an Act of Parliament has been passed making March 17th a national holiday, which legalises the closing of banks and other public institutions in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of making an Order confining railway traffic in that country to the limits beyond which they do not go on Good Friday and Christmas Day in each year.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): The Board of Trade have no power to make such an Order.

  Annunciators in the Dining-Rooms and Tea-Rooms of the House of Commons.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to furnish the amount of money requisite for the erection of annunciators in the dining-rooms and tea-rooms.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg also to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will have annunciators installed in the dining-rooms and tea-rooms for the convenience of Members.
  LORD BALCARRES: No provision has been made in the Estimates for this service, and the First Commissioner is not therefore prepared to install annunciators in the rooms in question during the year 1905–6. The suggestion of the hon. Member will be favourably considered in framing the Estimates for 1906–7.

  Admiralty Courtyard, Whitehall.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is yet able to make any announcement as to the removal of the plaster and
  1722
  wooden panelling placed at the back of the colonnade on the Whitehall front of the courtyard of the Admiralty.
  LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner has personally examined the screen, and is quite willing to remove the sliding wooden doors referred to, but doubts the advantage of doing so. The screen wall at the back of the colonnade is built of stone repaired with plaster and painted; it forms an integral part of the structure designed by Robert Adam, and cannot be removed.

  Motor Engines for Fishing Boats.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will endeavour to arrange that the operation of fixing a trial motor engine into a fishing boat at Aberdeen will take place during the Easter holidays, so that Members interested may be able to be present.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): I am not able to promise that a vessel equipped with motor engines will be ready for inspection by the time mentioned by the hon. Member, but matters are being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

  Motor Traffic —Ayrshire County Council Regulations.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if the regulations submitted by the Ayrshire County Council with reference to motor traffic have now been approved by the Secretary for Scotland.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Secretary for Scotland hopes to be able to issue this Order in the course of next week.

  Lisbellaw Petty Sessions Appeal.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what official or department is responsible for authorising the statement of a case from the Lisbellaw Petty Sessions, in the matter of Inspector Murnane v. the Justices of Fermanagh, heard recently in the King's Bench, Dublin; whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice, when delivering judgment, stated that the matter before them was in itself of little or no importance; and if he will state

  1723
  the cost incurred by the Grown for witnesses and lawyers in this case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): The police were directed by the Executive to apply to have a case seated. I decline to state the names of the several officials before whom the matter came. The point involved in the case was most important, namely, whether, in the case of the sale of drink to a person who was at the time in fact drunk, knowledge of his condition on the part of the vendor was necessary to constitute an offence under the statute. The Court decided, according to the contention of the Crown, that such knowledge was not necessary. What the Chief Justice said was, that "it was really of very little importance what became of the particular case, but that it was of grave importance to the administration of the law that the point should be understood, and that it should be declared that it was not of the essence of the offence that the impeached publican should have knowledge of the state of the man who was alleged to have been drunk." A very grave charge, amounting in effect to collusion and conspiracy, was made against the police by the defendant, supported by the affidavit of the hon. Member, who was one of the presiding justices, and by the affidavits of others. It was therefore necessary to summon these persons to Dublin for examination if required. The Court decided that there was no foundation for this charge. The entire costs incurred in the case amounted to £45 9s.
  MR. JORDAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I refused to sign a case because I thought it was vexatious litigation.
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, but unfortunately for the hon. Member the Bench entirely disagreed with him.
  MR. JORDAN: Was I not ready to give evidence, and did they not refuse to call me?
  MR. ATKINSON: The hon. Gentleman made an affidavit and desired to be cross-examined on it, but it was not thought necessary.
  MR. JORDAN: Did not the magistrates at the rehearing again dismiss the case on its merits?
  MR. ATKINSON: It may be so. If so, we shall probably hear of it again.

  The Kingston Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether any action has been taken by the Estates Commissioners to bring about the reinstatement of Mr. Thomas Kent in the holding on the Kingston Estate, from which he was evicted in 1887, having regard to the fact that the holding is vacant and in the possession of the vendor, and that the sale and purchase of the Kingston Estate is in process of being dealt with by the Commissioners.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Mr. Kent's application for reinstatement will be considered when the estate has been inspected.

  Bangor (County Down) Improvement Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the Bangor (county Down) Improvement Bill, a petition has been presented against the Bill by a landowner of the district, and that such petition has been deposited by Mr. Tighe Macredy, solicitor, Dublin; and whether, seeing that Mr. Macredy is solicitor to the Local Government Board, by which body a report on the Bill must be sent to the Select Committee, he will say whether it is usual for the solicitor to the Local Government Board to act for opponents of a Bill upon which the Board has to advise.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Messrs. Macredy are employed by the Board when they require the services of a solicitor, but are not debarred from taking private practice. The Board have no occasion to employ their solicitors in connection with private Bills, and Messrs. Macredy are therefore not consulted in such matters, nor do they see the Board's reports before they are made public

  Kilrush Harbour Creek.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the creek, Kilrush Harbour, is Crown or Government property; if so, whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests or the Board of Trade Departments have power to transfer ownership or guardianship of the creek; and, if such power be vested in those offices, will they give a transfer of such powers to the Kilrush Urban Council, acting as local authority, for the purpose of making it available as required for commercial purposes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Master of the Rolls has, in the case of Vandeleur v. Glynn, judicially decided that the foreshore in this creek belongs to the plaintiff, Colonel Vandeleur. An appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision is now pending, and until it has been decided the Question cannot be answered.

  Owenmore River Drainage.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the county of Sligo has received no grant under the Marine Works Act, the Government will now consider the advisability of allocating a portion of the balance of £4,000 remaining on foot of the funds provided under The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, for the drainage of the Owenmore River in that county.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The funds provided under The Sea Fisheries Act are expressly limited in their application to the purposes of that Act. These purposes do not include drainage.
  MR. O'DOWD: But will the Government make inquiry with a view to giving some assistance in this matter, seeing that the people have been ruined and are unable to carry out this necessary work?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is impossible to answer a Question of that kind across the floor of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman has any facts to communicate to me, I will consider them.

  Sugar Beetroot Cultivation in Ireland.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that sugar beetroot can be successfully and profitably grown in Ireland, even on land of inferior quality, the Irish Department of Agriculture will now take some practical steps towards encouraging the cultivation of that crop.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member's attention does not appear to have been directed to my reply to the similar Question put to me on Thursday last† by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division.

  Irish National Education—Effect of Rule 127 (b).
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Rev. M. Keaneny, P.P., of Charlestown, county Mayo, copies of resolutions recently adopted by the clerical managers of national schools in the diocese of Achenry protesting against the issue by the Commissioners of National Education of Rule 127 (b); and whether, in view of the effect of this rule on Irish country school children and of the protests made against it, the rule will be withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The rule has not yet come into operation. I have already stated the reasons for its adoption, and the extent to which the Commissioners have agreed to qualify its application. The rule was made solely in the interests of Irish school children under eight years of age.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: How many assistant teachers will be thrown out of employment by enforcement of this rule?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I cannot answer that Question off-hand. The matter has, however, been carefully considered. The rule is in the interest of school children of a particular age, and the result on the teachers is a totally different question which does not arise here.
  † See page 940.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: But where the boys are removed an assistant teacher will of necessity lose his employment?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously, in the adoption of any rules of this kind, whether in Ireland or in England, there must be some effect on the teacher, but the object is to benefit the children, and I am informed as a matter of fact that no injustice is done by this rule to the teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: If, as I understand, 600 men will be thrown out of employment, after they have given their lives to the service, what is to be done with them?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That is a hypothetical Question. First, it will be necessary to ascertain if it is a fact; and, if it be so, then will be the time to consider whether there is any remedy.

  Cusack Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the position in regard to the purchase of the Cusack, county Longford, Estate by the Estates Commissioners; whether the negotiations have yet been concluded or not; and, if not, will he urge upon the Commissioners the necessity of closing this matter promptly.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are now about to send an inspector to examine and report upon this estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: When will the inspector go there?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Really, it is impossible for me to answer as to every detail of the work of the Commissioners. The hon. Member may be certain that they will not unduly delay any work they have to perform, but I must leave these things to their discretion.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: There has already been a delay of eighteen months.

  Organisers' Science Classes in County Meath.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many preliminary and Part II. organisers' science classes for national teachers have been held in county Meath, and how many teachers have attended these courses; whether any, and, if so, how many suitable technical schools are available in the county at which the remainder of the teachers can get trained, and at which those who attended the preliminary classes can complete their course, and what provision is made for the training of those for whom no technical schools are available; whether he can state the number of convents in Ireland in which preliminary science courses have been held, and what provision is made by the Commissioners of National Education to enable the nuns who attended the preliminary courses to complete their course; and whether any arrangements can be made for the training of nuns who have received no science instruction.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Part I. classes, in elementary science have been held at two places in the county, and attended by fifty-nine teachers. The head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained for training teachers in science. Ninety classes have been held in convent schools, and the services of a lady assistant organiser are available for this and similar work in future. I am making inquiry as to the remaining point raised in the Question, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Agricultural Instructors in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the framing of the rule by the Agricultural Department excluding the people of a county from appointments as instructors in their own county, the appointment for Donegal of Mr. J. D. Cassidy, a native of the county, with a permanent residence therein, as an instructor in bee-keeping was sanctioned by the Department; why may not the departure from the rule which has been sanctioned in this case be sanctioned in

  1729
  other cases; and whether, having regard to the deadlock in the administration of agricultural schemes in Donegal and the discontent produced by this rule, he will advise its withdrawal.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, but the rule referred to was not made applicable to the bee-keeping scheme, as the instructor is employed for a short time only at two seasons of the year. It is not intended to modify the rule.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What is the foundation of the rule? Why should people with a special knowledge of the county be boycotted?
  MR. WALTER LONG: There is no justification for a charge of boycotting. I am informed that experience led those responsible to the conclusion that it was in the interest of the educated that the instructors should be chosen from another county. That practice has been adopted, theeffects of it are being carefully watched, and I am assured that those responsible attach great importance to it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is Sir Horace Plunkett responsible for this?
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir, I am responsible.
  MR. HAYDEN: Where does the Department get its knowledge as to the county from which these people come, seeing that they are not able to ascertain the nationality of other public officials?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I imagine that the ordinary sources of information are open to them.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and it cannot now be argued by means of further Questions and Answers. I hope hon. Members will have some regard to the claims of others who have Questions on the Paper.

  Irish Criminal Procedure—Revision of Sentences.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1730
  of Ireland what is the practice with reference to the remission of sentences and the consideration of the propriety of the exercise by the Lord-Lieutenant of the Prerogative of Pardon in Ireland; are there, as in England, periodic reconsiderations of the sentences passed on prisoners; is there, as in England, any, and, if so, what staff of officials for the preliminary stages of this work; and, if so, what has been their training; in what respects does the Irish system differ from the Home Office system with respect to the remission of sentences and the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardon.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The remission of sentences, and the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardon in Ireland is vested in the Lord-Lieutenant. There are in Ireland, as in England, periodical reconsiderations of the sentences of all long-sentenced prisoners, in addition to the consideration of such cases on memorial. The preliminary stages of this work are carried out in the Chief Secretary's office, where all the available information is collected and summarised. It is not known that any substantial difference exists between the Irish and the English practices, but the former has remained unchanged for very many years.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL; Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor state that there was no periodical revision?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to refer to a previous Answer.
  MR. SAWIFT MACNEILL: But they are so contradictory.

  Police Constable Reddy, of Maryborough.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a complaint has been, received by District-Inspector Redmond, Maryborough, that on the evening of the 6th March Constable Reddy, without any provocation, used insulting expressions in the public street to respectable

  1731
  residents of the town; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Inspector-General is inquiring into this matter.

  Longford Extra Police Force.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in October, 1902, a force of police was requisitioned for a prosecution, for which a sum of £5 6s. 7d. extra police charge was claimed, and that although this sum was charged in respect of an offence arising out of transactions in all parts of the county of Longford the sum itself was charged solely against the urban district of Longford; and whether, seeing that, notwithstanding the fact that the county council of Longford agreed to have it levied as a county-at-large charge, it is still charged against the urban district, will he direct that the wishes of the county council to have it levied as a county-at-large charge will be now given effect to.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The additional police were employed on the occasion mentioned in the town of Longford, and the charge in respect of their cost was properly levied on the urban district. This is in accordance with practice, and it is not proposed to re-open the matter, as suggested.

  Colonel King-Harman's Longford Estate.
  MR. J. P. FAREELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Colonel W. H. King-Harman, of Newcastle, county Longford, has recently sold through the Estates Commission an evicted tenant's farm, at Keel, formerly in possession of Patrick Fox, who is now living in a labourer's cottage, to his own son, Captain A. W. King-Harman: whether this arrangement is yet before the Estates Commissioners or not; and, if so, will they sanction a sale of this kind in view of the purposes of the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion, and having made due inquiry, consider it is more to the advantage
  1732
  of the evicted tenant's family that the larger portion of the holding should be sold to the son of Patrick Fox. The remainder of the holding will be retained by Colonel King-Harman.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the King-Harman Estate in south Longford, in which the farm of Creagh, formerly occupied by Mr. Robert Armstrong, has been sold to a bailiff named Jones; whether he is aware that since his occupancy of this farm Jones has allowed the mansion and out-offices on it to fall into total ruin: and if, in these circumstances, this transaction will be sanctioned?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The sale in this case was completed on 6th October last.

  Evicted Tenants in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken to provide untenanted lands in county Longford for the benefit of the evicted tenants there, eighty-six of whose applications are on file with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will he indicate the nature of the steps being taken to provide homes for these people under the Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Proceedings for the purchase of two estates are at present pending before the Commissioners. In the event of any untenanted lands being distributed in the county, the claims of evicted tenants will be considered.

  Irish National School Building Plans.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any alteration has yet been agreed on in Plan No. VI. A for the building of national schools in Ireland; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the delay in extending the scope of this plan, the building of national schools in Ireland has been practically at a standstill for the past three years; and, if so, will he urge upon

  1733
  the Treasury the necessity for expediting this change.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The particular plan cannot be dealt with apart from the question of the revision of the plans and estimates generally. It is a large question, but, as I stated on 22nd February†, I will endeavour to expedite the settlement of it. It is not the case that the building of national schools in Ireland has been practically at a standstill for the past three years.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately when this matter will be settled?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I cannot.

  Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state whether any, and, if so, what obligations are imposed on the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees with regard to the publication and audit of their accounts; and whether these obligations have been discharged.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am advised that there is no statutory obligation on the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees to publish and audit their accounts. If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question I shall be glad to furnish him with information as to the Act under which the trustees were created.

  Portrush Harbour.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any representations have been made to the Board of Works with reference to Port-rush Harbour, county Antrim; whether any representations have been made to the Public Works Loan Board; and whether the Board of Works has any, and, if so, what, jurisdiction over the Public Works Loan Board.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The Board of Works have received no representations
  † See (4) Debates, exli.; 903.
  1734
  on the subject of Portrush Harbour. I learn that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are now in communication with the Portrush Harbour Company. The Public Works Loan Board is an absolutely independent body. May I add that when I answered a Question on this matter the other day I was not aware that any representations had been made to the Public Works Loan Board, nor was I aware a report had appeared in an Irish paper that I was present at the deputation.

  Defence of the Empire.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the change of policy recently announced as to secondary naval bases and military garrisons at strategic points of the Empire, on which money has lately been spent out of Military and Naval Loans Acts, he will give the House an early opportunity for the consideration of the question, other than that afforded by Estimates, upon which a portion only of the matter could be discussed; whether any intended military or naval loan proposals will be introduced early in the session; and when it may be possible to propose the Treasury Vote containing Item E, on which such matters could be raised.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the right hon. Baronet is under some misconception in regard to the places where money has been expended, and which come under the new scheme. If he will ask me a further Question I shall be glad to give him any information in order that he may be prepared to deal with the subject when we come to discuss Vote E. I shall be glad to put that Vote down at any time the House desires. I think it is an important subject, but it cannot be dealt with until we get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.

  The Aliens Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, now that financial

  1735
  business has been for the present disposed of, the Aliens Bill may be introduced on Monday and its stages advanced as rapidly as possible.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a date, but I am very anxious to proceed as fast as possible with the Bill.

  Sea Encroachment on the English Coast.
  COLONEL LUCAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will agree to a Royal Commission to inquire into the damage to the coast of Great Britain caused by the encroachment of the sea, and to suggest the best course to follow to reduce such damage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As at present advised. I am not in a position to promise my hon. friend the Commission he desires. That Answer also applies to the Question of the hon. Member for Thanet.

  Appended is the Question referred to—
  MR. MARKS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps he is taking or proposes to take with reference to the representations that have been made to the Board of Trade on the subject of coast erosion; and whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry as to the steps that may be taken, so far as possible, to prevent such erosion.

  The Unemployed.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately when the Bill dealing with the unemployed, promised, in the King's Speech, is likely to be introduced.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: At the same time, I may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to introduce the Bill, promised in His Majesty's Speech, providing for the establishment of authorities to deal with the question of the unemployed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unless the House will consent to the introduction of the Bill dealing with the unemployed,
  1736
  promised in the King's Speech, under the Ten Minutes Rule, I do not think there will be time for it before Easter. It is a measure that the Government are most anxious to proceed with.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: Cannot the same pledge be given for this Bill as for the Aliens Bill—that it shall be pressed on as rapidly as possible?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a measure which the Government is most anxious, to proceed with.
  MR. CROOKS: Will there be a reasonable time-limit put on the everlasting anxiety of boards of guardians? The uncertainty is simply wearing people out.
  MR. NANNETTI: Will the Bill deal with the case of Ireland's unemployed?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order!
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether the Gentlemen who catechise me think the Bill ought to be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. That course would greatly facilitate business.
  *MR. KEIR HARDIE: We shall be prepared to consider that suggestion.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: Does the Prime Minister consider the Aliens Bill to be more important than the Unemployed Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to put a Question of that nature.

  Scottish Bills.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Congested Districts Board Amendment Bill and the Whale Fisheries Bill will be brought forward for Second Reading.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no statement to make as to these Bills.

  The Colonies and Fiscal Reform.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury

  1737
  whether any negotiations as to colonial preference or retaliation took place between the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Prime Ministers before the Coronation Conference of 1902; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There were informal pourparlers upon the subject of colonial preference. But no record was kept, and therefore no record remains. There is no correspondence in existence which can be published.

  Motions for Adjournment.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to proceed with the Motion standing in his name respecting debate on Motions for Adjournment at Easter or Whitsuntide.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLalso had the following Question on the Paper—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will fix a day before Easter for the discussion of the proposed Amendments to the rule with reference to Motions for the Adjournment of the House and the limitation of discussion in debate on such Motions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will have this Resolution moved some night after twelve o'clock if the House will accept it without discussion. I cannot find time before Easter, and I do not know whether I can find time after Easter for a discussion on the Resolution in view of the pressure of Government business. The Resolution was put down in deference to an appeal from hon. Gentlemen who are apparently discontented with my reply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As one of those who have pressed for action in this matter, I do not remember that I ever said I would accept anything that the Government proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I make no complaint, but do not let hon. Members complain of me. That is all I ask.

  Underfed School Children.
  MR. ARTHURHENDERSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant facilities for the passage into law, this session, of a short measure empowering educational authorities to provide meals for destitute children.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: May I ask whether, if those facilities are given, they will be granted for the first Bill introduced on the subject—namely, the Bill of the hon. Member for Hoxton.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a statement made by the President of the Local Government Board that boards of guardians have no legal power to deal with this pressing matter in any way whatever, and that neither the local education authorities nor—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question on the Paper should first be answered.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be proper even to suggest that we should take any steps until we get the Report of this Committee now sitting and inquiring into the facts.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Now may I ask if the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland recommended in 1903 that there should be legislation
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, which has been fully answered.

  Scottish Church Dispute.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the Royal Commission on the affairs of the United Free Church and Free Church of Scotland has been received; whether he is aware of the anxiety in the public mind upon the subject and the general desire; to put an end to the uncertainties and litigation with regard to the numerous church fabrics and properties affected; and whether he can accordingly see his

  1739
  way to expedite the printing and issue of the Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am desirous of having this Report in my own possession and in the possession of the whole House. Of course, it does not rest with me to take any steps in the matter, but I am sure the Commissioners will do all they can to hasten the proceedings. Every effort will be made to expedite the printing of the Report.
  MR. FINDLAY: Cannot some power intervene to stop the game of grab now being carried on by the Free Church—in the name of the law—until Parliament is able to deal with the subject?
  [No Answer was returned].

  Tariffs and Shipping Debate.
  MR. LOUGH: I wish to ask if the Prime Minister proposes to take any notice of the Resolution of the House passed unanimously last night.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That Question can be answered if it is put on the Paper. It can scarcely be treated as urgent within the meaning of the Standing Order.
  MR. LOUGH: It is generally regarded as urgent.

  UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
  It being now Five minutes to Three o'clock, seventeen starred Questions, including those addressed to the Colonial Secretary, remained unanswered.
  *MR. McCRAEasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the desirability of rearranging the order of Questions. This was the second occasion this week on which Questions to the Colonial Secretary had been put at the end of a long list, and there had been no opportunity of asking them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to arrange the Questions to meet the convenience of the House. Last session a complaint was properly made that Questions addressed to myself were sometimes
  1740
  cut out. I think that the arrangement which has now been made, by which those Questions always come on, is for the general convenience. Recently a request was made to me that while the Army debates were going on the Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War should come on at a time when they could be answered orally, and I did my best to see that arrangement was carried out. Now hon. Gentlemen complain that the Colonial Secretary, who used to occupy the position now given to the Secretary of State for War, should be put back in his place. It is difficult to frame a scheme to meet everybody's wishes. On certain days we might have the Irish Questions put last.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Leave them out altogether. Tell us to stand aside.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They will all be answered on the Paper. The suggestion made to me will be considered. But it is obviously impossible, if as many Questions are put down as are at present being put down and as many supplementary Questions are asked, that every Question can be answered orally.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND:
  Extend the time.
  MR. MACVEAGHasked whether the Prime Minister was not invading the province of Mr. Speaker. Were they to understand that the Government arranged the order of Questions?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The matter is arranged amongst the Ministers themselves, but if any complaint about it is brought to my notice I have authority over the list.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill:—Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. James Henry Campbell, Mr. Long, Mr. Field, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Harrington,

  1741
  Mr. Hayden, Mr. Bond, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Thomas Herbert Robertson, Mr. Thomas Lorimer Corbett, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Lonsdale.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from serving on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Trades Unions and Trade Disputes Bill:—Mr. Attorney-General.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (SCOTTISH TRAW LERS) BILL.
  "To apply sections four hundred and thirteen to four hundred and sixteen of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to Scotland," presented by the Lord-Advocate; supported by Mr. Bonar Law; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, as to the style and title of the Commissioners, the execution of deeds by them, and the application of the Fund constituted by the said Act, "presented by the Lord-Advocate; supported by Mr. Cochrane; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the hearing by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction of charges and applications relating to Children," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Sir John Gorst, Mr. Samuel Smith, Lord Edmund Talbot, and Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  [THIRD READING.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDcomplained that the House of Commons was unable to discuss the working of the great Land Act of 1903 owing to the fact that no information had been given as to its work Last year they were told, not unnaturally, that the time had been so short that no real information could be given on which to found criticism, but now the Act had been in operation a year and a-half and it was not, he submitted, unreasonable to ask the Government to I put them in the position of being able to discuss the matter. Already this session the matter had been raised on three or four occasions, but not once had they had any effective debate whatever. All these debates had been of a most ineffective and useless character, because they had not in their hands any adequate information as to how the Act was working. He did not make any complaint, of course, against the present Chief Secretary, who manifestly was not responsible, nor had he any desire to blame the other members of the Irish Government; but the position in which they found themselves was most improper and ridiculous. The House of Commons ought to be in possession of the facts which would enable it to discuss the question, and, in view of the possibility that the session might come to an early end, it was most important that this should be done without delay. All they had got at present was a certain list of figures giving the number of applications for sale, the prices paid, and so forth; but the preparation of this list would take more time than the preparation of a general Report, so that it could not be on account of want of time that they were left in ignorance of the principles on which the Act was worked, as to the directions in which the Commissioners were working, and as to why, in the Commissioners' views, the Act was not working satisfactorily in certain portions. He urged most strongly on the Chief Secretary, now that he had come to the fulfilment of his

  1743
  duties, that he should inquire into the matter and find out why the delay had taken place; and asked that before the end of the Easter holidays they should be supplied, first with the general Report of the Estates Commissioners, giving not only the figures, the amount of money, and so forth, but their comments on the working of the Act and their explanations of the principles on which they were working; and, secondly, with the regulations and instructions about which there had been a good deal of mystery and discussion, and which the Chief Secretary promised—it was one of his first acts—should be prepared and published in a simple manner as soon as possible. It was absolutely essential they should have these materials given them, and he earnestly pressed upon the Chief Secretary the necessity of losing no further time. A great deal of mischief had been done by the information having been withheld. He believed there was probably a great deal of misapprehension in both extremes as to the working of the Act; and this was inevitable so long as they were kept in the dark. What interest in the world could be advanced for withholding the information? Surely it was not in the interest of the Government, and it could not be in the interest of the Estates Commissioners. Was it that the staff was insufficient? This great Act had been working a year and a-half, and no Report whatever had been made. It was little short of a scandal, and he urged the Chief Secretary to free himself from any responsibility for it by insisting that the information should be in the hands of hon. Members before the House assembled after Easter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that to his mind the reason they had not had the Report was perfectly plain. Under Section 23 of the Act the Estates Commissioners could only issue a Report on instructions from the Treasury both as to the time of its presentation and its form; and in answer to a Question he had addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury it had been admitted that no representation was made by the Treasury to the Estates Commissioners with regard to the issue of a Report till February 28th. This was the reason they had not had a Report. They had
  1744
  been promised regulations, and these were important, but what was more important was that before they could know what was going on, they ought to have the instructions issued by the Estates Commissioners to their inspectors. The absence of this Report and of any debate in the House of Commons as to the working of the Act were most embarrassing and led to all sorts of mischief in Ireland. It was said that the Act was a failure, but he did not believe it. He thought it had failed in some important particulars, but he did not agree that there had been failure in a general sense. They could not, however, get out the facts until they had not only a full Report, but these regulations and instructions.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,)agreed that until they had the information asked for it was impossible adequately to debate the administration of the Land Act, and this, he also agreed, led to a good deal of misapprehension, for, through ignorance of what was going on, partisans on both sides came to conclusions which he thought were inaccurate. He had only been able to make a partial examination into the subject, but the little he had seen led him to believe that the Act was in no sense a failure, and bethought the information when supplied would substantiate this view. He had nothing to conceal at all. It was true that it was within the province of the Treasury to prescribe the time of the presentation of the Report and, what was much more important, the form the Report should take, but the Treasury, as far as he knew, was only actuated by the desire that the Report should be in accordance with what they believed to be the principle laid down in the Act, and he did not think there had been any delay. He regretted very much the absence of the information, but he would do his utmost to expedite its publication in every possible way. One of the first things he did on succeeding to his present office was to inquire both of the Estates Commissioners and his other advisers in the Department the cause of this delay and to press upon them the very great urgency of bringing the matter to an immediate conclusion.

  1745
  He thought, however, that a year and a-half was too liberal an interpretation of the time the Act had been working.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the late Chief Secretary promised Reports every six months.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not forget, because I am not a war eof it. Proceeding, he said it was conceivable that in passing a great Act of Parliament assurances might be made with confidence that they would be able to be carried out, but which, when it came to administration, they found could not be. This was probably one of the most complicated and difficult Acts that any Government had ever had to administer, and, after all, the Estates Commissioners could not get together the necessary information for their Report until they had been long enough in the saddle to arrange their procedure and arrive at a plan of how their work was to be done. He did not think there had been undue delay on their part. He believed they had now arrived at a time when they would be able soon to proceed to publication, and although he would not promise more than that, he would do everything in his power to secure publication of the Report before the end of the Easter holidays. He thought this result ought to be secured. It was impossible to justify keeping the House out of information essential to a discussion, which it ought to have, and which he desired it should have, because he believed that it would be in the interest not only of those responsible for the passing of the Act, but, what was more important, to the advantage and interest of the whole Irish population that the full power of the Act should be understood, that its method of administration should be understood, and that the relations between the Executive and the Estates Commissioners should be understood.
  There were two sets of regulations, those issued by the executive Government to the Commissioners, and those issued by the Commissioners to their inspectors. The latter were ordered from the printer on March 20th, and he would take care they were laid
  1746
  immediately. He agreed that with regard to the other regulations it was undesirable that there should be any mystery; it was not only undesirable, but also unjust. The Act imposed upon the executive Government the obligation of issuing regulations for the guidance of the Commissioners, and it was obvious that if the action of the Commissioners were to be controlled by regulations issued by the executive Government, in fairness to them and in order that the House and the public might judge as to where responsibility rested, there should be no mystery about it, and that these regulations should be made public as soon as possible. The first thing he did on returning to London was to call for information as to these regulations. He had already considered them, they were now before the Estates Commissioners and the other members of the executive Government, and he had asked that they should be put forward: with, the utmost rapidity, He desired that they should be published as soon as possible, and, if they proved insufficient and required amendments, those amendments should be issued in the same form as the original regulations so that the House would be able to judge of the responsibility of action under them. He shared the view that a full knowledge of the subject was all important if they were to judge of the ultimate success or failure of the Act. He believed it would effect a great agrarian reform and that it would, if justly and wisely administered, bring great blessings of peace on the country as a whole. Therefore, he desired to do everything that could be done to facilitate its smooth and successful working.
  *MR. JOHN CAMPBELLsaid he rose to move the rejection of this Bill in order to call the attention of the House to the condition of the aborigines of Western Australia, as disclosed in the recent Report of the Roth Commission. The state of affairs depicted there was so appalling that no words of his were necessary to enhance it. He should use, therefore, the simplest and most pedestrian of phraseology, and promise that, as far at least as he was concerned, no undue heat would be imported into this discussion. Now, what was it that

  1747
  this Report contained? It indicated, in the first place, that the native population in Western Australia were living in a condition of slavery. He used the word advisedly. The males were compelled to work for the white men from the tenderest years without a penny of wages, and when they were incapacitated by old age or infirmity they were turned adrift remorselessly without the slightest provision being made for them.
  As for the administration of the laws under which they lived it was the worst conceivable. Take the commonest offence with which these poor people were charged—cattle-killing—which constituted 90 per cent, of native offences. When a bullock was reported to have been killed anywhere, what happened was this. The constable went out into the bush with half a dozen police trackers armed with rifles and well equipped with chains and manacles for a purpose which he would explain later on. This force of armed men would surround the black encampment at nightfall and in the morning rouse up the whole assembly male and female. The former were taken into custody as prisoners. The latter were seized as witnesses against their male relatives. Both males and females were impartially put in chains, which were never once removed, day or night, whether travelling overland or wading through rivers, until the trial was finished. On the journey the evidence proved that the unhappy female witnesses—who, on the very face of it were not even accused of any crime—were systematically out-raged by the police and their agents. Worse remained behind. The trial it self was the merest travesty of justice. The prisoners did not know the nature, of the charge which was made against them. They were ignorant of the language even of the tribunal, and to them was given as interpreter the police boy. The latter was very often ignorant of the special dialect of the prisoners, and in any case he was never a safe medium. Through his agency the culprits who were arraigned conjointly in batches were usually prevailed on to enter a plea of guilty—a plea on which, according to the Criminal Code Amendment Act of 1902, any justice was empowered to inflict a sentence of three years
  1748
  hard labour. Consequently, they need not be surprised to hear that for a prisoner to escape was a thing altogether unheard of. In connection with this question it must not be forgotten that it was to the direct pecuniary interest of the police to bring in as many prisoners and witnesses as ever they could; for they were allowed conduct-money at the usual rate of 2s. 5d. per head per day, and as they could subsist the natives for a few pence a day they contrived to make a very handsome profit. And when the trial was over the young women witnesses, instead of being conducted back to their former place of residence, were turned adrift in the streets, the police pocketing the daily capitation grant for the return journey. Even while in gaol the prisoners were kept in irons. There was really no justification for this. All the gaolers confessed the practice to be unauthorised and illegal. The only attempt at palliation was the allegation that if not fettered they would escape. But if this was really true, then obviously the remedy was to build better prisons, the convict labour being ready and quite sufficient for the erection of proper houses of detention.
  He desired to call special attention to the question of the children. The lot of these little creatures was a very sad one indeed. From the earliest age they were forced to labour for employers who gave them nothing in return—neither education nor wages. Was it astonishing that they commonly fell into evil ways—thievery or prostitution? The evidence of all the witnesses went to show that, if the children were to be saved, provision must be made for them in the way of orphanages and industrial schools. The pearl-shell fishery business also required special mention. The boats employed in this industry were for the most part unseaworthy. They were purposely never registered in order to escape inspection under the Merchant Shipping Act. Boys and women were taken aboard in direct contravention of the statute. Liquor and opium were carried without stint, and they were therefore prepared to hear that drunkenness and immorality prevailed all along the coast line.
  And now, to substantiate these charges. He trusted the House, would bear with him if he went briefly through some of the most important evidence contained

  1749
  in the Report under discussion. He would read to the House a few extracts from the Roth Report of December, 1904. Mr. Prinsep, chief protector of aborigines, was asked—
  "Can a contract be legally entered into without your knowledge?—Yes.
  "Can you prevent any Asiatic or European from being an employer under the Act?—No, I cannot.
  "Can you prevent the greatest scoundrel un-hung from employing an aboriginal under contract?—No."
  Absconders might be arrested on warrant. Employment without contract was the commonest form of service. The proportion of natives under contract to all actually employed was one in twelve. Many employers were objectionable but the police were powerless to interfere. The police were invoked to bring back runaways and this was quite illegal. The indentures were up to twenty-one and too long, and fourteen or sixteen would be better. They received no education. Inspection by justices was permissive, but never used. But all three forms of employment—under contract, without contract, or under indenture—were alike in the fact that no wages were ever paid.
  John Byrne, sergeant of police, Broome, in his evidence was asked—
  " As far as you are aware, are any wages being pail under the contract system?—Not that I know of. I have never heard of anything more than clothes, food, and tobacco being supplied.
  "Have you any opinion of your own as to whether wages should be paid?—I do not see any reason why wages should not be paid. For instance, a settler has a station, and in the dry season all the surface water dries up. The cattle have to be watered from the wells, and he employs natives. If he could not get atives he would have to employ white men. I think it is a big advantage to the settler to have the natives, and they should have some wage."
  Matthew Langtree, stockman, was questioned as follows—
  "How are the natives treated by the Kimberley pastoralists?—They have to work night and day, and all they get is a bit of clothing and a little food. They are only half-fed and half-clothed. It only costs about a shilling a week to keep them. When they get old and infirm they are allowed to lie down and die.
  "Have you been on the stations?—Yes. I have seen old men and women blind and helpless. There is no home for them. They die like dogs."
  Nearly all the witnesses were unanimous that wages should be paid either (a)
  1750
  direct to the native or (b) to the Government to make provision for the indigent and infirm. The Commissioner supported the latter suggestion and proposed a minimum wage of 5s. a month on land, and 10s. a month on boats. The period of leave of absence to be also paid for. Blacks were also employed on municipal works. No wages were paid, save perhaps a bit of tobacco from the mayor. In the pearl-shell industry no wages were paid and the natives were sent out in unseaworthy boats.
  Another witness, Walter John McKenna, Acting Sub-Collector of Customs, Broome, gave evidence as follows—
  "Are you responsible for the administration of the Pearl Fisheries Act?—Yes; as far as prohibited immigrants are concerned, and the shipping of men signing the ship's articles.
  "Can you stop any unseaworthy vessel from going to sea, whether registered under the Merchant Shipping Act or not?—I can only stop a vessel when she is registered.
  "How many of the 400 pearling luggers are thus registered?—I do not know.
  "Do you know anything about the Merchant Shipping Act?—No.
  "Why not?—Because we haven't got a copy of the Act in the shipping office, though we have made repeated applications to the Shipping Master, Fremantle. We have made four applications since last April."
  Graham Blick, medical officer and acting R.M., Broome, was asked—
  "Is anything done to stop an unseaworthy boat from going to sea?—I have no power to prevent any old cranky boat from going to sea.
  "Do you know of anyone here who has power to stop any such boat going to sea?—No. If such a case did occur the matter would have to be dealt with by a special board.
  "Have you ever exercised your power as Resident Magistrate or justice for boarding a vessel to examine the stores in accordance with the Act?—No.
  "Do you know whether any of the other justices have exercised this power?—No. Two of the other justices are pearlers, but I do not think they have visited any but their own boats.
  "You have never satisfied yourself as to the quantity or quality of the stores carried on the boats?—No.
  "Is there any limit to the quantity of liquor that may be carried on these boats?—Not to my knowledge. It is a question for the shipping master."
  Filomeno Rodriguez, pearler, of Broome, said—
  "I think some of the boats are unseaworthy.
  "You mean that they are a danger to human life?—Yes.

  1751
  "Have you ever drawn the attention of the owners to such boats?—Yes.
  "To your knowledge has any action been taken on that information?—No.
  "As far as you are aware does any Government official ever inspect these boats to see whether they are seaworthy or not?—No.
  "If there were such a Government official would there be many boats that he would condemn?—Yes.
  "Is it to the interests of the pearlers that they should keep these unseaworthy boats in use?—Yes. I think it is to their interest.
  "In your experience have you ever known of a justice or a magistrate boarding your vessels and examining your stores, etc.?—Once, in 1886; not since."
  Native boys and women were taken aboard in defiance of statute. Liquor and opium were allowed to be carried in unlimited quantities and liquor was sold to the crews at 10s. per bottle for whisky, and 12s. to 15s. per bottle for gin. Drunkenness and prostitution prevailed along the coast line from La Grange Bay to the east shores of King Sound. Diseases and unspeakable vices were imported by the Malays, Japanese, and Manillamen. Cattle-killing constituted 90 per cent. of native offences. Why? Because squatters shot the kangaroos; pastured their stock on all the watered portions of the run; destroyed the natives' hunting dogs, etc., etc. Arrests were made in crowds from pecuniary motives, as the following evidence clearly proves.
  Mr. Skinner, J..P., Wyndham, said—
  "What are the rations allowed per head per day to the police for prisoners and aboriginal witnesses' rations?—2s. 5d. at out-stations and 1s. 6½d. in Wyndham.
  "Having been here so long you must have a fair idea of the ordinary cost of living, have you not?—Yes.
  "Do you consider that the police make any profit out of this allowance?—I do, of course.
  "Why do you say 'of course'?—It has always been a well-known thing. Everybody knows that they have made a profit out of it for a long time past.
  "Have you ever kept a black here?—Yes.
  "What does it cost you on the average to keep him?—I am feeding the one I have at the present time for 1s. per day, which pays for what he eats. He gets practically the same as I do myself. He is a cripple and the Government pays me 1s. per day for his support."
  1752
  Questions were put to John Wilson, constable of police, Isdell River, as follows—
  "Do you actually spend 2s. 5d. per day on each prisoner or witness?—No; but each native has sufficient food.
  "How could you make up 2s. 5d. per day for rations for a young female aboriginal witness, for instance?—They have the same rations as the men.
  "You say that they only receive flour, tea., and sugar, and that you kill kangaroo sometimes, and that they sometimes collect lizards and roots. I want to know how you can spend 2s. 5d. per head on each one?—(No answer.)
  "Do you mean to tell me that you are not in a position to state whether you make a profit on this 2s. 5d. which you are allowed for daily rations for these blacks?—I make a profit. I do not lose anything by it."
  Dodwell Browne, R.M., a district medical officer, Wyndham, was the next witness—
  "Have you not felt often in dealing with these cases that there is something of an undercurrent of injustice meted out towards the natives in the way that they have been brought in without defence and with no opportunity of calling witnesses?—I have. I have felt all along that they first of all do not thoroughly understand the charge against them. They do not understand the nature of the crime of killing a beast. I have done my best to give them justice in this Court and to give them the lightest sentence possible. I have had my judgments criticised in consequence. All these cases, in my opinion, are a huge source of revenue to the police. It is to their advantage to arrest as many prisoners as they can, whether they have killed or alleged to have killed the beast, because they get their maintenance per day for each man. This is too high and, as common report has it, the cost of one Winchester bullet for killing a kangaroo is about their true feed. The police also get maintenance for rations supplied to witnesses and their children, and they are supposed to escort discharged native prisoners after their time is up back to their homes, and the witnesses too."
  William Goodridge, corporal of police, Wyndham, said—
  "I consider that the police make a considerable profit out of the 2s. 5d. per head per day.
  "Do you consider that this acts as a temptation for them to bring in a larger number of prisoners and witnesses than otherwise?—I do.
  Have you ever mentioned this matter to your chief?—I have not, for the reason that I thought if the thing leaked out I might be looked upon as a black sheep if the other police found out that I had tried to cut down the rate for rations. I spoke about it to one or two."

  1753
  As to the mode of arrest it could be effected either with or without a warrant upon verbal information or upon no information at all. They surrounded the camps at night and waited for daylight. The constables and black trackers were armed with Winchester rifles and chains for fifteen to thirty natives. One constable testifies that he once arrested thirty-three prisoners.
  F. A. Hare, commissioner of police, in his evidence was asked—
  "In cases of cattle killing, do the police arrest an aboriginal without warrant?—Yes, they do. A warrant is taken out in the first place if information is laid against certain aborigines, but when the police go out on patrol and an offence is reported, the offenders are tracked and arrested without a warrant.
  "What method is adopted to prevent their escape from custody?—Chains are used.
  "Are neck-chains used on Europeans under similar circumstances?—I have never heard of it.
  "Have you any legal authority for using neck-chains on natives?—Authority is given in the Police Regulations.
  Regulation 647.—In escorting native prisoners, the practice of chaining them by the neck must not be resorted to except in cases where the prisoners are of a desperate character, or have been arrested at a considerable distance in the bush; or, when travelling by sea, they are near the land to which they belong, and it is necessary to adopt special measures to secure them. Even then the practice must not be adopted if it can be avoided.
  Have you any regulations as to the size or weight of these neck-chains?—No.
  "To what is the neck-chain attached when the prisoner is escorted by a police officer who is mounted?—He would be fastened by the neck and arm and chained to the man next to him, and attached to the saddle only when absolutely necessary."
  Robert Anderson, corporal of police, was asked—
  "In escorting native prisoners do you use neck-chains?—Yes;
  "What authority have you for using them?—I know no legal authority, but the chains are supplied by the Department for that purpose."
  George Jeffery Scott, gaoler, Wyndham, gave evidence as follows—
  "When blacks are brought in in chains from Hall's Creek, are they ever made to swim the rivers in their chains?—As far as I can find out from police and natives, the chains are never taken off them when crossing rivers and creeks.
  "Is not this a great risk to life?—It is a wonder to me that they are not all drowned
  1754
  from what I hear of the state of the rivers in the rainy season.
  "Do you know of any cases of blacks having been drowned in this manner?—Natives in past years have told me that several have lost their lives in crossing the rivers.
  "When the police bring in prisoners to your gaol are they always properly clothed?—They are always naked, with the exception of the usual loin cloth. In the wet season it is very severe on natives travelling without clothing or blankets."
  Chains were used also in prisons. Octavius Burt, Sheriff and Comptroller-General of Prisons was asked—
  "Are neck chains used in prisons?—Yes.
  "Are these chains used continuously during the whole length of the sentence?—Yes.
  "Kindly let me know what is your authority for the use of them?—There is no legal authority. I can only say it is one of those things so universally adopted that it is never questioned. The practice has been in vogue for about thirty years or more I believe.
  "Are neck-chains ever used for Europeans?—Not that I know of.
  "You have no regulations as to the use of neck-chains?—None.
  "Have you any regulations as to the weight and size?—There is nothing laid down.
  The weights of the chains in use are:—Roebourne, from 2 lbs. 12 ozs. to 5 lbs. 14 ozs.; Broome, 2 lbs. 2 ozs.; Wyndham, 5/11 lbs. with Yale lock and everything complete.
  "Has the chain a collar and padlock?—The chain encircles the neck and is fastened with a small Yale lock."
  William Paterson, gaoler, Broome, on the same subject was examined as follows—
  "Who supplies you with these chains? The Comptroller-General of Prisons.
  "Do you use any 'up' and 'down' coupling chains?—No.
  "If you did use such a chain the weight would be much less, would it not?—Yes. It would take a great deal of the strain off.
  "Have you any authority for using neck-chains at all?—Yes.
  "What is the nature of this authority? The nature of the authority is that I must place all native prisoners consigned to my keeping in chains.
  "From whom did you receive this order?— The Comptroller-General of Prisons, Mr. Burt.
  "When did you receive this order?—About the middle of last year, as near as I can tell at the present time.
  "Do you mean to tell me that every aboriginal prisoner who comes here, say for a minor offence e.g., absconding under the 'Merchant Shipping Act,' has to be chained?—Yes, according to the order mentioned

  1755
  "Even although the boy is fairly civilised, and perhaps educated and working for Europeans for years?—Yes.
  "Is it ever mentioned in the warrant that aboriginal prisoners are to be chained?—No.
  "Is it just custom and usage then?—Yes.
  "Do you place neck-chains on any other than aboriginal prisoners?—No."
  It appeared from the Report that the gaolers sometimes allege that the prisoners could not be kept in safe custody except by being chained. That was due to the fact that the prisons were not properly constructed. The use of chains could easily be abolished if the prisons were properly constructed.
  The following was from the evidence of John James Pond, gaoler, Roeburne, who was questioned as follows—
  "Is it ever mentioned in the warrants that the aboriginal prisoners should be kept in chains?—I have never seen it.
  "Do you place neck-chains on any other than aboriginal prisoners?—No.
  "Why not?—It is not necessary.
  "The cells in which your aboriginal prisoners are confined are all stone, with iron bars to the windows and iron gates?—Yes. They are very substantial.
  "Are these cells sufficiently strong to prevent escape?—I should say so.
  "Are the neck-chains kept on the prisoners at night?—Yes.
  "Are they fixed to the walls?—Yes. They are fastened to rings in the wall.
  "If these cells are sufficiently strong, why are the chains not removed at night?—That I could not give you any reason for. If the chains were taken off, the prisoners might 'rush' the gates. Two officers are always on duty, and we would have to arm them. There are twenty prisoners in each cell. It would be possible to leave the prisoners chained together, but not cuffed to the wall.
  "What do you mean by being 'cuffed'?— Attaching the end of the chain by a small handcuff to the ring in the wall."
  The same witness was examined as follows in regard to split-links—
  "When you first receive aboriginal prisoners at this gaol are the neck-chains fixed by single cuffs or by Yale locks?—Some have Yale locks and some have single cuffs.
  "Are the neck-chains ever fixed by any other method?—Yes; by iron split-links. Two batches of prisoners from Wyndham, twenty in each batch, were fixed by this method.
  "What was your method of opening these Split-links?—By hammer and chisel, with the
  1756
  prisoner's neck placed on the blacksmith's anvil.
  "Is not this a dangerous method?—Yes. In case of accident in transport, especially on board ship; if there was a wreck, every life of the twenty might have been lost. Even on shore if one prisoner had a fit it might prove too late to open a link.
  "Does the escorting constable carry appliances to open such split-links in case accident should suddenly befall to any one of the batch?—I have never seen any.
  "About how long did it take your warder to unloose each split-link?—Between five and ten minutes.
  "That is to say, even with all appliances ready to hand, it would take a warder any where between one and a-half and three hours?—Yes.
  "Did the warder find it a difficult job when he unloosened the split-links on the prisoners that came here? —Yes. I had to superintend and hold the chain while the officer opened the link with hammer and chisel. I was afraid it might injure the prisoners' necks; these prisoners had no proper necklets—all raw chains.
  "Can you let me take possession of one of these split-links?—Yes.
  "Did you draw the escorting constable's attention to such split-links being used?—Yes. I asked him why they were used. He did not know. Two of my warders were present."
  George Jeffrey Scott, gaoler, Wyndham, was examined as follows—
  "When you first receive aboriginal prisoners at this gaol from the police, are the neck-chains fixed by single cuffs, Yale locks, or split-links?—Some are fixed with patent split-links, some with both cuff and ordinary split-links, occasionally with cuff only. I think the cuff is only readjusted in the police yard to save time. It is mostly done with split-links.
  "In case of a fall or a fit, is not the use of a split-link dangerous?—Very often. The use of the split-link is dangerous. Also the fact of the chain being too short is dangerous. If a prisoner fell he would be bound to drag down the prisoner on either side of him.
  "How short have you noticed the chain joining two prisoners necks?—Twenty-four inches. I have remarked to the police that I have thought it much too short and was cruel.
  "This Commission has been informed that in the majority of cases the witnesses for the prosecution are young women. Is that so?— In every case on the charge of cattle-killing the police have always brought female aboriginal witnesses.
  "Young ones?—Yes.
  "Have you ever drawn attention to the fact that these aboriginal witnesses are always young females?—No. I have always drawn attention to the fact that the witnesses are females."

  1757
  Matthew John Langtree, stockman, gave the following evidence as to the chaining of witnesses—
  "Are the women put in chains?—Yes. This is done as a safeguard because they are witnesses against the male prisoners.
  "Are the women witnesses?—Yes, in the majority of cases. They are young women."
  John Wilson, constable of police, Isdell River, was questioned as follows—
  "Do you ever arrest the gins?—Yes.
  "Do you accuse them of cattle-killing?—No.
  "Do you arrest them as witnesses?—Yes.
  "Have you any legal authority to arrest these women as unwilling witnesses?—No. Not that I am aware of.
  "How do you detain them, with neck-chains? —They are chained by the ankles.
  "Do you mean that their two legs are chained together? —No. I fasten the gin to a tree with a handcuff and then fix the chain to one ankle with another handcuff—one handcuff for each prisoner.
  "Is it only at night that they are chained like this? —It is necessary to detain them sometimes in the day when going through scrub or rocky country where they might get away. It is very rare that they have to be secured in the daytime.
  "The Commission has received evidence that these witnesses are generally young gins or young children. Is that so?—I have never brought in female children as witnesses, that is, what I have considered children.
  "Have you brought in young women?—Yes."
  "Have you brought in old women?—Yes.
  "Is it true that more young women are brought in as witnesses than very old ones?—I think there would be an equal portion of each.
  ''Do you allow your trackers or the assisting stockmen to have sexual intercourse with the gins whose relatives or friends you have arrested?—They may do it without my knowing it.
  "Do you take any precautions at night that these assisting stockmen or trackers do not have connection with the women when chained to the trees?—No.
  "Does such intercourse go on?—I suppose it does. It could go on in the camp at night and I would know nothing about it.
  "So far as you know, then, this sexual intercourse may go on with these female aboriginal witnesses?—Yes.
  "Do your trackers have sexual intercourse with these female aboriginal witnesses?—I have never watched them. They might do so. I sleep at ease myself and never take any notice of these things. It would have caused trouble if I did."
  1758
  When the witness was asked whether women who were wives and relatives of the prisoners were warned as to giving evidence he said he did not warn them about giving evidence against their husbands.
  John Inglis, constable, was questioned as follows—
  "Do they realise the harm that they are doing to their husbands?—Not in the slightest. They do a lot of harm against their husbands, and do not know it."
  John Wilson was questioned as to bringing evidence for the defence—
  "Do you bring in any witnesses for the defence—No.
  "Why not?—It is not a customary thing in the district. I have never seen it done.
  "This is rather a one-sided kind of justice for the black, is it not.—Yes. I have never known it to be done since I have been in the district.
  "You have admitted that some of these witnesses are relatives of the prisoners, have you not?—Yes. They are all related in one way or another to the prisoners."
  John Inglis, Constable of Police, Hall's Creek, was examined on this point as follows—
  "Do you ever bring in any witnesses for the defence? —No.
  "Is not this a rather one-sided kind of justice for the black?—It is in a sense. It in a queer country where I am. Every mother's son is guilty."
  H. Mackenzie Skinner, J. P., Wyndham, was questioned as follows—
  "Have they any witnesses for the defence?—No; never."
  Mr. Prinsep, Chief Protector of Aborigines, gave evidence as—
  "Is an aboriginal prisoner discharged from gaol without clothes?—Generally, I believe.
  "Do the police bring him into Court without clothes?—Yes, as far as I know."
  The evidence of Dodwell Browne, R.M. and district medical officer, Wyndham, contained the following—
  "Do you ask the accused how he pleads?—Yes.
  "Through an interpreter?—The interpreter generally asks how the man pleads, and the man answers to the Bench with gestures or in the usual pidgin and broken English.
  "Who is this interpreter, as a rule?—He is generally the police boy.
  "How can you guard against this interpreter telling you a lie?—In no way whatever.

  1759
  "Does he always understand the language of the accused, or does he speak through another interpreter?—They are different tribes, but from what I see I think they can understand pretty well the drift of what is said generally.
  "Because the accused happens to admit or is made to admit that he has killed a beast, do you take such a reply to mean that he proposes to plead guilty?—The charge is explained as carefully as I can do it. They kill a beast on such and such a day at such and such a creek. If the man says that he kills such and such a beast I take it that he pleads guilty. I think, and have seen it, that a man will plead guilty now for killing a beast some time ago. The native cannot separate two charges on two beasts, and will still have the one offence in his mind. If he kills a bullock once he will plead guilty to every subsequent charge of killing a bullock no matter how often he will be charged with it.
  ''Do you believe that these wild blacks can be made to understand the scope of the meaning of the terms 'pleading guilty' or 'intent'?—I think very few of them do."
  William Paterson, gaoler, Broome, was asked—
  "Amongst the aborigines sentenced for cattle-killing whom you have shown me, and to whom you have spoken in my presence, how many do you think really understand what they are here for?—Not one of them, in my opinion."
  If an aboriginal pleaded guilty to any offence not capital he might be sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. Ordinarily they were charged conjointly in batches. Prisoners were also cross-examined—a mode of procedure utterly alien from the spirit of English jurisprudence.
  Mr. A. G. Woodroffe, manager, Adelaide Steamship Company, Wyndham, was examined as follows—
  "Does the prosecuting police officer cross-examine the accused?—Yes.
  ''In 'pidgin' English?—In cases where the natives understand English he does it directly in English. In cases where the prisoner does not understand English it is done through the interpreter.
  "Are you satisfied that the evidence of the aboriginal accused and witnesses is correctly obtained?—That is a hard thing to say. I do not understand the native language. There is no doubt in my mind that the native witnesses in many cases are not property cross-examined. As a proof of that I can refer you to the depositions in the Courthouse at Wyndham, which will show that the questions put to all the natives are answered alike in every detail. They all have the same story.
  "When blacks are accused of a crime you do not think they have a fair trial?—I am satisfied
  1760
  in my own mind that they never have a fair trial. If a native is tried for murder he is tried before the Resident Magistrate and committed for trial, and then the same Resident Magistrate is given a commission to again try the same case. It is natural that he will not direct the jury against his previous verdict. I can cite one case (the Teroney case) in which I was not a juryman, but I was interested because I offered bail, but it was not accepted because the Resident Magistrate had a personal animus against mo. I attended the Court in this case, and the Resident Magistrate told the jury that if they did not tiring in a verdict as directed by him it would not be just and right.
  "In most of these cases, then, do you think the blacks merely get the drift of the evidence, or do they really understand the evidence given against them?—I firmly believe that the blacks do not understand the charges that ate brought against them."
  Mr. Prinsep, Chief Protector of Aborigines, was questioned as follows—
  "Are any cases of such a punishment as three years imprisonment on an aboriginal known to you?—Yes.
  "For what?—One case of unlawfully wounding and several others of killing one head of cattle.
  "Can you suggest any justification for a three years sentence on a black for killing cattle?—Yes. Unless severe sentences were given for the suppression of this crime, other and more unlawful means might be taken against the native."
  "What do you mean by 'other and more unlawful means'?—Private suppression or by force of arms.
  ''In your opinion is not a three years sentence a terrible power to put in the hands of a justice?—Certainly.
  William Paterson, gaoler, Broome, was examined as follows—
  "You showed me one old man who was a cripple and practically blind. Is this man here for cattle-killing?—Yes. I have his warrant, which states that he with others pleaded guilty, that he did kill one cow, the property of Rose Brothers, at Isdell River, on or about the 12th day of April, 1904, with intent to steal the carcase. He received six months imprisonment.
  "Have you reported the fact that this man is a cripple and almost blind to your chief?—I have.
  "What made you report it?—The man's condition. I thought it behoved me to recommend that the Government remit the remainder of his sentence.
  "Do you believe in long sentences on aboriginal prisoners?—No. I am opposed to long sentences for offences such as cattle-killing. On the other hand I have noticed of late that the sentences for this offence are not quite so long as they have been in former years."

  1761
  The evidence of J. J. Pond, gaoler, Roebourne, contained the following—
  "Do you believe in long sentences on aboriginal prisoners?—I do not.
  "Can you give me any reasons for thinking so?—I think that when they have been away from their homes so long they seem forgotten when they return. Their tribes will have very little to do with them. They often commit further crimes because their women have been taken.
  "What do you consider the youngest ages of the prisoners you have here?—Sixteen, fifteen, and fourteen years. These boys have been sentenced to two years imprisonment for cattle-killing."
  G. J. Scott, gaoler, Wyndham, was questioned as follows—
  "What do you consider the youngest ages of the prisoners you have at present?—Judging by appearances, between eleven and thirteen years of age.
  "What punishment have these children received? —Sentences from six months to two years, with hard labour.
  "What proportion of these aboriginal prisoners do you honestly believe know what they are in prison for?—When I came here a great number of them were "Myalls," and their idea was that they were here for road-making. As they become educated the majority of them know that they are here for cattle-killing, as they come to gaol so often."
  The young women who were called as witnesses were not sent home again. This was a contravention of the regulations. The police got the money for the homeward escort, put it into their own pockets, and turned the young women out into the streets.
  The hon. Member said he would now read the evidence of two natives, giving in summarised form a description of the evils which prevailed in the administration of justice. Boodungarry was an aboriginal child, about fourteen years of age, undergoing in Wyndham Gaol, a sentence of two years hard labour for alleged cattle-killing. Mr. Hartrick, secretary to the Commission, took shorthand notes, and compiled the following evidence in the form of a readable statement—
  "I was caught by Jack Inglis and Wilson (policemen). Some others, named Manulla and Goominyah, were with me and other men. We were naught at the camp at Mt. Barrett. I had been working for a white man, but left and went, into the bush. Wilson asked mo if I killed cattle. I said 'No.' Wilson and Inglis then talked together, and they said they would shoot me. Inglis put a cartridge in his rifle, pointed it at me, and said he would burn me at a rock.
  1762
  It frightened me, and I then said I did kill a bullock. The first time I said I did not kill any cattle, but this time I was frightened when he said he would shoot, and I said I did kill cattle. He took me and some other blackfellows, who were also frightened. They all said they had killed a bullock because they were frightened. The policemen put handcuffs on our legs and hands. Two of us were chained by the legs. They then caught some more blackfellows—a big mob—and some gins, and took us away. Wilson got a gin and took her into a gully. I have seen Policeman Wilson 'marry' plenty of gins. We were taken to Hall's Creek. At the Courthouse I said nothing, because Inglis told me not to talk. Wilson hammered plenty of blackfellows with nulla-nulla. I do not know why he "wommered' [beat] them, but he frightened me and I did not talk in the Courthouse. The gins did all the talking. The magistrate only spoke to them. He did not ask me whether I killed a bullock."
  Garngulling, a native about thirty years of age, undergoing a sentence also in Wyndham Gaol, for alleged breaking into a house, was examined apart from Boodungarry and said—
  "Jack Inglis [policeman] caught me at the station when I was watering cattle for Ben. Cranwell. Inglis made me get off my horse and go with him. We left my horse at the house. The waterhole was close to Ben. Cranwell's house. I went away with Inglis. One day we came into a camp and all the black fellows ran away into the bush. Inglis asked where the black fellows were, and the police boy asked an old man, who said they had run away. Inglis did not chain me up, but gave me a ride on a horse. We met a wagon. Jack Inglis went into the camp, but there were no blackfellows. We met two gins, who said they wanted to go back to Hall's Creek. We saw tracks of two blackfellows and two gins land followed the tracks. They caught blackfellow Larry. Inglis asked me if I could find some blackfellows. I said there might be some in the creek, as I had seen tracks. We had dinner, and saw two police boys bring up one blackfellow, who was Larry. There were two gins in Inglis's camp. Inglis asked Larry if he killed a bullock belonging to Ben Cranwell. Larry said he did not, and that he came from Hall's Creek with a letter for Ben. Cranwell. Inglis said to Larry, 'Now, you tell truth. If you don't I will burn you in the fire.' I heard it with my own ear. Inglis said, 'I will shoot you.' Two gins sat down and said he killed cattle. They told a lie. Inglis said, 'If you don't tell me the truth I will shoot you.' He picked up the rifle. I saw him holding it in his hand. Larry said he only had kangaroo beef. We then packed up and looked for some more blacks, and got some, including little Tommy, and went into Hall's Creek. I have seen policemen Wilson and Caldow and Jim O'Brien 'marry' gins. [O'Brien was a constable, but has since left the service.] I have seen policemen sleeping with gins at night time. I have seen Caldow sleeping with gin Nelly, who is now working for the corporal at Wyndham. Blackfellows do not like the police. Sometimes

  1763
  on the road we have plenty of tucker, and sometimes nothing. Sometimes we have beef. Sometimes we have nothing for breakfast, nothing for dinner, and for tea we had some Johnny-cake We were often hungry, and had only a little bit of tucker. Policeman would not let gins or tracker get any food. This policeman was named Wilson. We were chained to a tree and had no tucker. Policeman chained the gins by the leg at night time, so that they would not run away. I have seen Inglis put a chain on a gin at the 40- Mile, Ben. Cranwell's station [1522.] Sometimes police men and sometimes police-boy shoot kangaroo for tucker. Sometimes police-boy gets a kangaroo, and takes a prisoner to help him. Gins get tucker from the policeman, but they don't give it to the black man."
  Then he came to the subject of the distribution of the Government rations and blankets. The Report seemed to indicate that the Government did issue these things, but that the persons appointed to distribute them applied them to their own uses. The evidence on that point was as follows—
  T. Houlahan, sergeant of police, Carnarvon—
  "Have you ever caught the police charging for rations which they have not supplied?—I have. About three years ago (I cannot remember the exact date) a constable named Mercer, stationed at the junction, sent in an account for rations supplied to natives, which I knew from my own personal knowledge to be incorrect. I had seen the natives employed and knew that they were being fed by their employer. They were employed washing wool and picking locks at a shearing shed. After seeing that the natives were employed I waited to see what the constable would do. An account came in for rations supplied, and I fully reported on the matter through my department, but heard no more about it.
  "Is it possible for such a thing to happen now?—Yes. It is possible for it to happen now, because I am not permitted to visit the upper station (junction) when I choose. It could happen at any time."
  Mr. Ostlund, R.M., Marble Bar—
  "In your opinion do those distributing relief to natives benefit by so doing?—I certainly think so, and I will read a communication I sent to the Aborigines Department on 18th June, 1900:—
  'From my own observation I find that the old and infirm natives come for relief twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays. On Thursday, the 14th instant, I weighed two lots of rations in the presence of Mr. C. H. Wilson, a Justice of the Peace, and found each to contain about 2 lbs. of rice, 2 lbs. of flour, and ¼ lb. of brown sugar. The natives inform me that they always receive the same ration. From a calculation of the local retail prices the cost of
  1764
  the ration is about half the allowance I hardly think the rations supplied alone would be sufficient for their sustenance, but these are supplemented by the employed natives, who are very kind to the aged and crippled ones. The natives receiving relief appear to be fairly well nourished.'
  "As far as I remember, I had a reply from Mr. Prinsep, in which he said that he did not abject to distributors pecuniarily benefiting by the relief as long as it was within reason. I quote this instance to show that I have drawn the attention of the Chief Protector to the matter."
  Mr. J. Langtree, stockman, said—
  "I am certain the blacks do not receive the rations authorised by the Government."
  As to the burial of these unfortunate aboriginals, the evidence of Mr. Prinsep, Chief Protector, was—
  "Are prayers paid for at a burial?—No; unless the deceased was a recognised Christian.
  "Have you ever paid for prayers at the grave?—I believe I have in some instances, although under protest.
  "Do you consider that there is any necessity for prayers? —No."
  There was only one bright spot, only one bit of pleasant reading in all this Report. It was the evidence of Father Nicholas, a Trappist monk, who seemed to have been to these aborigines what Father Damien was to the lepers in the Sandwich Islands. He established schools, orphanages, homes for the aged and the infirm, and accomplished all this at his, own expense. Father Nicholas' evidence was as follows—
  "Who pays for all this?—I do. I have given all I have. I have no more. And now for the first time after ten years work amongst these people, I am in debt to the amount of about £100.
  ''Do you mean to tell me that the Government has given you no pecuniary assistance? —Not a penny, so far. But the time has now arrived at last when unless the Government come soon to my assistance, I can no longer continue this expenditure which, though I have to admit it with a wounded heart (le cœur naure), will mean that I shall have to abandon all such sick natives to their fate. When Mr. Olivey travelled round here on behalf of the Aborigines Department, the Resident Magistrate spoke to him very forcibly on the necessity for giving some assistance to these blacks. Mr. Olivey promised to make the necessary recommendation to the proper quarters. I received only one box of medicines.
  "Does any religious body give you pecuniary assistance in this good and noble work?—No.
  "You are then dependent only upon the charity of the Broome public?—Yes.

  1765
  "Where do you keep all these sick people that you have just mentioned?—With the exception of three of the worst cases (the amputated leg, the pleurisy, and the syphilitic which I have here at the back of my premise in a tent and a hut, they are all at the Point.
  "Where is this Point?—A headland, within the town boundary, where I have 10 acres, a very healthy locality and exposed to the sea breeze.
  "Is there anything paid for this?—Yes. It is rented at £3 per year.
  "Who pays this £3?—I do. It is my blacks camp.
  "Are there many old and infirm blacks in the neighbourhood of Broome?—Yes; I have often found them dying of hunger in the absence of a little care and kindness. Considering the many instances I have come across in Broome, how many must there be in other centres occupied by aborigines! I would suggest that all such cases, instead of being abandoned to their fate like dogs, should be collected into certain areas and looked after by some one friendly to the natives. But, for this the assistance of the Government is essential."
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary what he proposed to do in this matter? Did he propose to to make any change in the constitution of the Protector of Aborigines? That gentleman seemed to have no legal status. Powers should be given to him to deal with children, in the way of sending them to schools and reformatories. All the witnesses were unanimous that the children ought to be fed, taught, and saved from thievery and prostitution. There were also the questions of supplying the natives with liquor and opium. A much heavier fine than at present should be imposed for the first offence. A second offence should be punished by imprisonment without the option of a fine. Most of all he urged the necessity of a speedy and drastic reform of the system which prevailed with regard to the administration of justice. To effect such reform it was surely unnecessary to wait for fresh legislation. These abuses were not so much owing to statutory defects. They were mainly administrative. The whole evil system of arresting and chaining both prisoners and witnesses in great batches for the purpose of securing the capitation fees, of forcing the prisoners to plead guilty at the muzzle of the rifle, of outraging the girl witnesses while in irons, of trying native prisoners for offences the very nature of which they were incapable
  1766
  of appreciating, of using the police boy as official interpreter in Court, of sentencing them to long terms of imprisonment, and of making them work out the whole period of their sentence in chains—all this could be amended by the vigilant supervision of the Executive, and without need for recourse to the Legislature. He had endeavoured to be as simple and concise as possible. If the facts set forth were correct—and he apprehended there was no one who would impugn their accuracy—then he confidently invited the House to condemn a state of things which was a disgrace to a British colony, and which would be a blot on even the most barbarous community.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARR (St. Helens)said he had had the opportunity of looking through this Report on the Condition of the Aborigines in Western Australia; and he was bound to say that the hon. Member was perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the House. Any one who spent half an hour in reading that Report could only come to the conclusion that this was a very bad case and ought to be dealt with by the proper authorities. He was aware that his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary and His Majesty's Government were in a difficult position, because this was a question which affected the internal administration of a self-governing colony; but it was a question of wide and general interest. They had in another continent an example of what had happened in regard to the treatment of aboriginal races, and if his hon. friend had no direct power in this matter, it was just as well that the British public should not be ignorant of, and that British public opinion should be expressed on, the condition of things which had been described by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He should like to state to the House the terms of reference upon which this Commission was appointed. It was appointed by the Governor of Western Australia on August 31st last year. There was something significant in those terms of reference. The Commission consisted of one man, no doubt chosen because he was most thoroughly cognisant of the conditions of the problem, and the reference said that this commission was appointed to consider the position

  1767
  of the aborigines in West Australia in respect of the allegations made when the Bill of 1897 was proposed. He could only think that the Governor must have had some information as to the state of things prevailing in regard to the natives conveyed to him, or he would have given less full power to the Commission.
  He did not wish, in regard to this Report, to harrow the feelings of the House, but he should certainly like to refer to two points. The first was as to the manner in which these prisoners were compelled to plead guilty. The Commissioner reported that, with a view to justifying their action in bringing these men into court, the police naturally took care to be sure of their victims. Unfortunately, the Report went on to say—
  "The Criminal Code of 1892 put something of a weapon into the hands of the police. It really saves trouble to get the prisoners to plead guilty, and it enables the police to deal more rapidly with a large number of native prisoners, in respect of whom they get certain fees, and so, to secure convictions, the accused are made to plead guilty—at the muzzle of the rifle, if need be."
  One was really reminded of some of the things which happened in the dark ages, and one could not help looking with wonder and regret on the mere possibility that such things could happen in the British dominions at the present time. The other question he wished to refer to was that of the failure of the Colonial Government to supply adequate native reserve territory. It might be said that part of the difficulty of remedying what was going on lay in the other difficulty of making a perhaps not very intelligent police force understand the best method of dealing with uncivilised natives. What the Commissioner said on this point was interesting and instructive. He said that a great responsibility rested upon the Colonial Executive in respect of the large amount of country which they were continually allowing to be taken up by British settlers without making the slightest provision for a land reserve for the natives, who were thus dispossessed of their hunting grounds. To raise cattle, the Commission went on to say in the Report, the kangaroo, which largely served the natives with food, was got rid of, and when kangaroos got scarce
  1768
  the unfortunate natives, whose standard of intelligence and of right and wrong was naturally not very high, were almost bound to commit crime in order to save themselves from starvation. In other words, they must either kill sheep or cattle which did not belong to them or they must starve. No doubt this, as he had said, was really a matter for the consideration of the colony, since it was a self-governing one, but he thought there was also some responsibility upon them, and, at all events, he was sure his right hon. friend would wish to seek some chance of impressing or the Colonial Government the desirability of giving these poor natives some chance of living in their own country. Much the same problem had presented itself in the Western States of America, but it was solved in a very different way, because when the Indians were conquered and the whites entered on possession of their territory large reserves were kept for them. That was the only way in which they could live, since the buffaloes which they used to hunt had been practically exterminated. If they had not been supplied with reserves they would have been face to face with the dilemma which they were now allowing the unfortunate aborigines of Western Australia to face. The same problem would probably face them for many years in Africa, and the only way he could see of meeting it was to arrange for the provision of more reserves on which these natives could live. In Australia, as he had said, they had no direct control, but he thought the question ought nevertheless to occupy the serious attention of the Colonial Government, and ho thought, so far as was possible, public opinion in this country might fairly be so expressed as to stimulate action by the Government.
  Might he, in conclusion, point to the conclusions at which the Commissioner arrived at the close of his Report? He admitted that in the areas over which the investigation had been made he was satisfied that the natives, generally, were not subjected to any actual physical cruelty, but said that wrong and injustice were taking place throughout those areas which could not, in his opinion, be longer either hidden or tolerated. Fortunately these wrongs were of such a nature, he added, that they could

  1769
  be dealt with by legislative action and by Departmental supervision, and he concluded with the earnest prayer, on the eve of his departure, that in the next Colonial Parliament the Bill of 1894 supplemented would become the Aborigines Act of 1905. There were redeeming features in the case—one was that an attempt was made on a former occasion to bring in a Bill protective of the natives, and the other was that the Governor of the colony seemed to have had his attention drawn to the matter at a more recent date, and that that led him to appoint the Commission. It should not be forgotten also that the Commissioner had only just reported, so that they might hope for the passing of the Bill, which was again on the stocks. He would only express a hope, in conclusion, that his right hon. friend would give the House some assurance that, so far as he was concerned, everything possible would be done to expedite a reform in this matter.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the case presented by the two previous speakers appeared, from the Report of the Commission, to be only too well founded, and went to show that the old gloomy story of the treatment of aboriginal Australians by white men was still true in at least one of the Colonies. He only wished that the hon. Member who had brought the question forward had shown equal zeal for the natives of the Congo State, but by a strange inconsistency he happened to be the only Member of that House who hitherto had undertaken the defence of the Congo Government when its methods were called in question in the British Parliament.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: The charges made last year against the Congo were vague and shadowy, based mainly on hearsay and not on substantial evidence. The Roth Report which he had been discussing was a legal, public document, upon which he invited the House to pass its opinion.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that His Majesty's Government had sent the British Consul on a tour of inquiry in the Congo Free State, and it was on the revelations in his Report that their
  1770
  indictment largely rested. But, however that might be, the House had reason to be grateful to the hon. Member that night. He quite realised that the Government of West Australia and not the Colonial Secretary were responsible for what the Report of the Commission disclosed, but it was nevertheless well that it should be clearly known that there were many Members of the British House of Commons who felt most strongly on this matter, and who expressed a very ardent hope that early and effective steps would be taken to stop the discreditable proceedings that had been described.
  He wished, however, to deal with another question. He did not know whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to a proclamation issued in Southern Nigeria in 1900. Under that proclamation the Governor was empowered to order a chief to attend to the cleaning out of any creek, and to call on the natives to do the work without, apparently, any pay, while any man refusing to help in the work was liable to imprisonment. That was a system of forced labour —a corvee — which he thought it undesirable to introduce into British Colonies, especially as it might with equal justice be applied in regard to the making of roads and railways, and he trusted that, unless the proclamation was qualified in some way in its administration, its withdrawal would be ordered by the Colonial Secretary. He also pressed the right hon. Gentleman for further information in connection with the Chinese labour question in South Africa—information which had been promised on various occasions. He specially wanted specific inquiry to be made into the report that white men were being dismissed from the Transvaal mines to make room for Chinese coolies through the substitution of hand-drills for machine-drills. He was assured that such displacement was taking place, especially in the Van Ryn Mine, and he also understood that a proportion of the white men who were ousted had the option of going back to work at a reduction of from twenty-five to thirty per cent. in their wages.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that on a previous occasion he raised the matter of the Transvaal loan. There

  1771
  were two points which, he pressed on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. One was in regard to the guarantee of the mineowners, and he desired to again press it on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The other was the question of the draft Ordinance which the Legislative Council had to pass before the thirty million loan could be issued and was also very important, having regard to the relationships between the Colonial Office and the Legislative Council with reference to the loan. He thought he could put his case by quoting from two despatches. Sir Arthur Lawley, on December 7th, 1903, wrote that, not having heard from Lord Milner, he was anxious to know whether they were to pass the necessary Ordinance during the then ensuing session, and if so what should be the form of the Ordinance, having regard to the existing guarantee loan. To that the right hon. Gentleman replied on December 12th.
  "Referring to your telegram of December 6th, I fully discussed the issue of the first instalment with Lord Milner. I do not consider it desirable at present to approach the guarantors as to the terms of the issue, but I shall do so before long probably, and will inform you of the result. All necessary provision in respect of the guaranteed loan is made in the draft Ordinance formulated in my despatch of the 22nd August. The Ordinance should be passed exactly as drafted, otherwise marked difficulties might arise here."
  Incidentally a very important point arose as to the question of the sinking fund. The mineowners stipulated that there should be no sinking fund. The Lieutenant-Governor, replying on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman, said that a sinking fund was considered essential by the Executive Council. These were two points the House ought to bear in mind when discussing this matter. Another point was the view of the Boers in regard to the loan. At the Boer congress on May 23rd, 1904, a resolution was passed reiterating the protest of the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in January, 1903, against the placing of a thirty million war debt on the land before responsible government was granted. He desired to ask the Colonial Secretary whether he had conceded the wishes of the Boer Congress that no step should be
  1772
  taken with regard to the issue of the Transvaal loan until representative government had been granted; whether the Legislative Council of the Transvaal had really refused to pass the Ordinance to sanction this loan; or whether they had put before the right hon. Gentleman reasons which enabled him to come to the conclusion that in the meantime the loan should not be issued. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in the statement that the Government ought to have made an arrangement with the Legislative Council of the Transvaal at the time the guarantee loan was issued. That was the time to get the Legislative Council of the Transvaal to have passed the Ordinance sanctioning the loan. The Government did not do so, and the result had been that all negotiations had stopped since December, 1903. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would in his reply give some explanation as to this.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington)said the hon. Member for Cleveland had not given him notice of his intention to raise the question of a proclamation in 1900 for the clearing out of creeks in Southern Nigeria. He was unable to deal with the question from memory, but he would make inquiries. As to the question of Chinese labour, he was in possession of Returns with regard to sentences, and he proposed to embody them in a Blue-book very shortly. A Report upon South African native affairs had been placed in the Library. With regard to the alleged displacement of white men by the substitution of hand labour for machine labour the facts were these. In a reef which was narrow it was undesirable to use the machine, because there was a danger that when the dynamite charges were placed in the holes drilled they would blow down not only the reef but also a portion of the roof which was incumbent on the r ef. This was bad from the point of view of economy, because a quantity of rock became mixed with the ore and sifting was expensive, and also because there was great danger to the workmen. Therefore the use of machine-drills in narrow reefs was undesirable. They

  1773
  came into use to some extent during the time when there was a great shortage of native labour. That shortage was now being redressed, and the machine-drill was now only being used in reefs that were sufficiently broad. He was informed that the result was not to displace white labour at all. That was merely the dictum that he had received from authoritative sources in South Africa, and before he made himself a party to it he should wish to see the exact figures.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that white labour was intended to be merely temporary in these mines, and it was intended, as soon as native and other labour could be found, that the white labour should be replaced.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that during the time of the shortage of labour the mine-owners used every effort to secure the elaboration of a small stope machine for the purpose of meeting these difficulties instead of employing white unskilled labour, and whether that attempt had been abandoned.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had not heard of the attempt suggested by the hon. Member. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh in connection with the Transvaal loan, the matter now stood in this position. A sinking fund was obviously desirable in the case of such a loan, and the desirability was pointed out by him to the guarantors. The assent of the guarantors to the creation of a sinking fund was given in January, 1904, provided that there was no diminution of the interest. The Government had lo take great care in dealing with the terms of the guarantee, as any variation of the terms might have released the guarantors from their obligation. When he first went to the Colonial Office, and was not very familiar with the question of the loan, he hoped to raise the first £10,000,000 in January, 1904, according to the promise which had been given and had never been receded from by the underwriters. But it was expressly understood that this loan should not be issued at a time of unfavourable market conditions, and by January, 1904, it had become apparent
  1774
  that the market conditions were very unfavourable. That condition of things continued throughout a considerable portion of 1904. The time went by in which this loan could be issued, and in the ordinary coarse the condition precedent to the issue of the loan—namely, the passage of the Ordinance—also lapsed. He understood the hon. Member to ask whether it was not desirable now to obtain the Ordinance from the Legislative Council. What he desired on behalf of the Government was not to press this subject upon the nominated Assembly. He had admitted that the money market was now favourable, and the guarantors were willing and anxious that the loan should be issued. But the Imperial Government thought that it was desirable, not only in the economic interests of the mother country, but also in a high degree politically, that the representative Assembly should take this obligation upon themselves. For that reason he had not proceeded with the Ordinance, or asked the unrepresentative Assembly to sanction it, which would be the necessary step if the loan were to be issued at the present time.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the money market was favourable now.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid if the market conditions were favourable the guarantors were equally willing to adhere to the conditions of their underwriting. He did not know whether the prophecy of the hon. Member that representative Government would not have come into being until the present Administration had gone out of being was an anticipation of gloom or of hope, but he was afraid it could not affect the question. If he understood the debate aright, even the hon. Member's own side—he might quote the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick and the senior Member for Oldham—agreed that the loan should not be enforced by the high hand of a nominated Council, but that they should wait until representative Government had come into being. He further understood the hon. Member to say that the Boers had protested against this obligation being undertaken in any form by the colony until the fullest

  1775
  self-government had been granted. That was no part of any understanding, expressed or implied by His Majesty's Government, and they wholly declined to accept such a conclusion.
  *MR. McCRAEasked whether any opinion had been expressed by the Legislative Council with regard to the issue of the loan, altogether apart from the question of the £10,000,000 and the favourable opportunity.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid that no opinion had been given by the Legislative Council on that point. The correspondence which took place between His Majesty's Government, Lord Milner, and Sir Arthur Lawley was strictly confidential, so that he had not been able to lay it on the Table of the House, but no communication had passed between the Home Government and the Legislative Council on that point.
  With regard to the subject brought forward by the hon. Member for South Armagh, after a very full analysis of quotations from the Report which had been made, it was unnecessary for him further to elaborate the matter. No one who had read that Report could possibly say that the state of things there revealed was not wholly deplorable. Nobody could defend such a condition of affairs or read of it without a feeling of great abhorrence. But hon. Members would remember that they were dealing with a self-governing colony which as regarded its internal affairs was substantially independent. A measure had been brought forward in the Legislative Council of that colony dealing with this matter. But he was informed that the Government of Western Australia desired to make perfectly certain of the facts—more precisely certain of the exact nature of the deplorable state of affairs which had been brought to their notice—and they appointed Dr. Roth, a thoroughly efficient and independent man, to inquire into the matter. On December 29th they received from him the Report which had been so largely quoted, and that Report reached the Colonial Office on the 23rd of this month. He had written a despatch and also cabled to know in detail what were the precise intentions of
  1776
  Colonial Ministers, but he had not yet received a reply. He understood that this Commission was appointed in order that full legislation might be brought forward in 1905, and he entirely identified himself with the hope expressed by the Commission that the legislation brought forward in 1904 would, with the additions recommended in the Report, become an Act of Parliament in 1905. He expressed the obligations of himself and the House to the hon. Member for having brought forward this matter, which it was obviously desirable in the interests of all should be made public; but he wished particularly to guard himself against admitting that the Australian Government were not conscious of the evils which existed or not desirous of dealing with the matter with thoroughness and expedition.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONfully endorsed the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, and said that while it was perfectly obvious that in such a matter the authorities at Downing Street had no control over the self-governing Colonies, it was of advantage that public opinion in this country should be expressed, not for the purpose of reflecting in any way on the Colonial Government, but with the hope that it was in accord with British views and that it would thereby be strengthened in the carrying out of proper reforms. With regard to the Transvaal loan, the right hon. Gentleman had once more repeated, as though it was an answer to their contention, that he could not see his way to press or force upon the Legislative Council, just when some extension of representative government was to be made, an Ordinance recognising the obligations of the Transvaal in regard to this loan. Every Member of the Opposition who spoke in the previous debate agreed that it would be a great mistake to do anything of the sort under existing circumstances. Obviously the loan could be issued only when the market was favourable, and the Ordinance could not be forced through the present or any other Legislative Chamber against its will. But the point raised by his hon. friend was that the House gave its assent to the £35,000,000 loan on the

  1777
  absolute condition that the £30,000,000 loan should be issued at some time, and the then Colonial Secretary said that an Ordinance would be at once passed by the Legislative Council giving a legal recognition on the part of the Transvaal of their indebtedness in that respect. The question was, why was not that Ordinance passed in 1903, which all agreed could not be asked for now? It was most unfortunate that it should not have been passed them, as the question would not now have arisen in connection with the change in the form of government, but the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation whatever of why the Ordinance had been hung up for two years. With regard to the alleged substitution of Kaffir and Chinese labour for white labour, he understood the facts were not denied.
  MR. LYTTELTONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to admit that under certain conditions there had been a substitution, but that on the whole there had not been a diminution of white labour. In the particular mine referred to, it was not the case that the white labour which had been removed was temporary labour. He understood that it was permanent labour, and that it had been displaced simply because of the alteration in the system under which Kaffir and Chinese labour was substituted for white labour. He did not doubt that the Colonial Secretary was under the impression that no such substitution had been made. Those who had considered the figures given at the beginning of last year before Chinese labour was brought in, must have come to the conclusion that, compared with the former proportion of white to coloured labour, there had been a very considerable substitution of Kaffir and Chinese labour for white labour in connection with the mines both above and below ground. The latest figures showed that, since the advent of the Chinaman, white labour in the mines had only increased
  1778
  by 2,000, and even some proportion of that was due to work anticipatory of the advent of the Chinese. There were something like 50,000 more natives and Chinese, that was, 20,000 natives and 30,000 Chinese in the mines. Upon those figures, instead of there being an increase of white labour of 2,000 there should have been an increase of 8,000 or 10,000, as an influx of 50,000 unskilled labourers ought to have led to a proportionate increase in the employment of white labour, but the old proportion of white to coloured labour there had disappeared, and that would have more than accounted for the increase of 2,000, so that practically there had not been a single additional white man employed because of the importation of Chinese labour. The real fact of the matter was that before the influx of Chinamen there was great pressure upon the mine-owners to use white labour and they employed white labour. The whole of that pressure had now disappeared, and naturally they now were employing a far smaller proportion of white men to unskilled labourers than before the influx of the Chinaman. Would the Colonial Secretary try to find out how far white labour had been displaced, in what way, and whether there were at the present moment as many white men employed in proportion as there were before the importation of the Chinese? He appealed to the right hon Gentleman to state whether the time had not come when some limitation ought to be placed upon the influx of the Chinaman. When the Colonial Secretary got the House to consent to the Chinese Ordinance, he did so on the ground that there was a deficiency of 30,000 unskilled labourers. Now he had not only got 30,000, but 50,000. They had seen how the experiment was likely to operate, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might very well now say whether he intended placing some limitation upon the influx of the Chinese instead of allowing the mineowners to introduce as many as they like. He should also like to know when they would have placed before them the letters patent of the new Constitution. Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether they were likely to have this information before Easter.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that in the case of a number of mines in the Transvaal the mine proprietors employed a very considerable number of whites for working drilling machines temporarily in order to tide over the time until, with greater safety, they could employ the hand-drill in the unskilled hand of the Chinaman or the Kaffir. With regard to the employment of white men in the mines the hon. Member for Poplar had acknowledged an increase of 2,000. A few weeks ago he gave the figures for one mine, which showed that there had been an increase of 275 white men in that particular mine. Of that number seventy-five were employed upon buildings and construction, and therefore 200 extra white skilled workers had been employed in that mine since the Chinese were brought in. At the first glance the importation of 30,000 Chinamen and Kaffirs and the small increase of white men might appear somewhat startling, but what were the facts? In the mines, as every business man knew, in order to keep the organisation going a certain number of men must be employed. In the Transvaal, in spite of the opinion that had been expressed by a good many hon. Members, who seemed to think that the mineowners were entirely selfish, he wished to state that there had been upon the part of the mine proprietors a deep sense of their responsibility in regard to the employment of white labour in the Transvaal, and he knew that in many mines white men were kept on when there was practically very little to do; and they were employed, exactly as the hon. Member for Cleveland had pointed out, for this particular work of drilling by machinery which was neither suitable for them or for the mines. There had been an increase of 50,000 Chinamen and Kaffirs, but he wished to point out that the proportion of white men in the mines to the amount of production before the introduction of Chinese and Kaffirs was not according to the necessity, and until sufficient Chinamen and Kaffirs had been brought in to establish things upon the ordinary basis of production, there could not, of course, be a very large increase of skilled white labour. Of course as soon as the balance was got then the increase of skilled white
  1780
  labour would be very considerable, in the proportions pointed out by the Colonial Secretary in his previous speeches in the House. It had been stated again and again in the country, most inaccurately, that the proportionate increase of skilled white workers to the proportion of recruited Chinamen was not according to the information given by the Colonial Secretary and others who had spoken on the question in relation to the mines. Until the numbers of Kaffirs and Chinese properly balanced the number of men kept on, men who were unnecessary for the mine when there was not sufficient work, until that balance was got, there could not be as large an increase as would probably be anticipated. That time had almost arrived. A number of the white skilled workers kept on hitherto without sufficient work had now got, sufficient work, and the hon. Member for Poplar, in suggesting that this increase of 2,000 in white men employed represented largely men employed in construction, was inaccurate.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not make that statement. What he said was that they had no information to go upon because the Colonial Secretary had been unable to give them any. They had been informed that the proportion of these men employed upon buildings and construction was probably about 25 per cent., and upon that calculation they would have to deduct 500 men from the 2,000 alluded to.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that probably a good number had been employed upon construction, but those men were being absorbed, and would be absorbed when construction ceased by the ordinary skilled work in the mines. The whole tendency now was towards an increase of skilled workers rather than the decrease which existed before the introduction of the Chines. He could only give his own impression upon this point.
  Perhaps he might be permitted to say a word or two in connection with the question raised by the hon. Member in regard to the Transvaal loan, not from the standpoint of those who had already spoken. The other day he listened with interest to the speech of the right

  1781
  hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke with great feeling and with great wisdom from his large public experience, upon their relations to the colonies which they had lately acquired, and he said that they could afford, if it were a question of closer union with this country, to forego that £30,000,000 loan in order to accomplish a closer identification of those colonies with this country. He might be allowed to say something with regard to his own experience. Before he went to the Transvaal he heard that public opinion there and in the Orange River Colony was against the placing of the loan. There was in their mind an impression that the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, like some South American Republics, might repudiate the bargain. This was said once or twice by gentlemen whose opinions he rated highly, they having had large experience in Colonial matters; but when he went to the Transvaal he came to the conclusion that the £30,000,000 should be placed. He believed the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony should bear that burden. He believed that all reasonable pressure should be put upon them by the Government. He was glad to say that the invariable reply to many hundreds of inquiries he had made, not among irresponsible people and not among mine-owners only, as to whether they meant to repudiate the debt, was that if it meant ten, fifteen, or twenty years they intended to keep to their bargain. All responsible British people in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony approved of the loan and would be ready to bear the responsibility. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh was quite wrong in supposing that there was a feeling against it in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, and that there might be a strong desire to repudiate such a debt of honour.
  MR. McCRAE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that I did not make any such suggestion. I asked whether the Legislative Council might not repudiate it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He understood him to say that there was a strong
  1782
  feeling against it in the Transvaal. There was, however, and naturally, a feeling among their Boer and Dutch fellow-subjects there against it becoming a charge upon the future of the country. He thought they could understand that. The country was a hard one to live in, and the Boers were an agricultural people, and any heavy charge upon the lard would be a severe handicap upon them. He sympathised with them, and he thought they all did in this matter. The leaders of the people, however, were unnecessarily fearful of this being made a burden upon the land. It would not fall upon the land; it would fall upon those whom hon. Gentlemen in the House thought should properly bear it. Those gentlemen who were so often criticised in the House would, if it were a question of honour, take the whole burden upon themselves, if necessary, in order to clear themselves from any reproach by the people of this country. It would, he thought, be a dangerous thing to say that this country was quite willing not to press the matter and to forego the loan. It was in human nature to accept freedom from debt if it were offered, and it would, to his mind, be most undesirable to suggest: "Well, you are hard up; we will not press you; you need not pay the loan." We should be injuring that country instead of benefiting it, because self-reliance, self-dependence, and honour necessarily, and pre-eminently necessarily demanded in this case that the debt should be paid even if it took twenty years. It was a question which the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony must face, not only in our interests, but in the interests of their own nationality.
  Referring to the question of the treatment of aborigines in Western Australia, the hon. Member said he was extremely glad the House had taken a temperate view on this question. Anyone who had lived in a colony for any length of time knew how sensitive the people there were. When they saw facts crowded into a Report like that quoted it was too dramatic. They had the whole thing concentrated in a fashion which was apt to mislead the judgment. There was a previous agitation on this question, and the House

  1783
  would remember that most of these unfortunate acts on the part of officials, police, and others were the results of a series of reprisals upon both sides. In the old days of Queensland there was not a squatter that was safe, and if the West Australian Government punished severely there was good reason for it; for sometimes the stealing of horses or the killing of cattle practically deprived the people, who were far from railways and means of locomotion, of the means of livelihood. In dealing with native races, and particularly with a race so low down the scale of intelligence as the aborigines of Australia, methods sometimes severe and often cruel were used, but the Government must not be blamed; the blame rested very largely upon individual people far removed from the control of law in a sparsely settled country. A responsibility was thrown upon the individual in such a country which was not thrown upon him where millions of people were concentrated and where the supervision of conduct could be better maintained. He thought the Australian Government would act more strongly because of the sympathetic pressure discussion in that House was sure to produce, and, suggested that they should not grow too sentimental over even such a state of things as had been decribed. He expressed the opinion that the Australian Government would act with even greater promptness than our Government would act.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that if they discussed from time to time the question of South Africa it was not—at least on his part—from the smallest desire to embarrass the Government in their duties in relation to that country, and still less was it their desire to throw blame on the Colonial Secretary, who had had imposed on him by inheritance a task as difficult as any statesman had been required to undertake in his recollection of public life. The reason why they ought to dwell to a certain extent on these things was that the House during the last five or six years had been constantly misled by the information which came from South Africa. The Press there, as was perfectly well known, was mainly in the hands of the mineowners, and we did not get, and had never got, true
  1784
  statements of facts from South Africa We did not know, except from private sources, of the destitution and misery there was in South Africa, of the sufferings which the white people had gone through, or of the many people who, having gone out there in the vain hope that they would succeed, had had to return. The information which came in private letters, and through other sources, was that the country was in a very serious condition financially and socially. He was not speaking now about Chinese labour. Therefore, it became incumbent on the House to dwell on these matters more or less. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down gave the expectation that there would be more white people employed in the Transvaal at some future stage. It had always been "in the future." They were always to be blessed; they never were blessed. Not one of the expectations held out in regard to that country four or five years ago had ever been fulfilled. There had never been an instance in recent history of such a constant succession of vain hopes held out as to the predicted relations between the coloured and the white population in the Transvaal. He would believe those predictions would be verified when they were verified. The soldiers who went out to this Golconda were to find employment and settlement. That was on the placards inviting Volunteers.
  What happened? Many of these men went out to stay—but not in the usual sense applied to an emigrant; and others had to come back disappointed to this country after risking their life in the war. The whole thing had proved an utter failure. There was to be an agricultural military colony. That was dealt with in a Special Report by the present Secretary for War who went into the history of various military colonies from the time of the Romans downwards. The whole thing had ended in some 500 or 600 heads of families being settled in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony together. Hardly any of them had gone with their families, and a great proportion of them had since left the place. That settlement had cost this country from £1,200 to £1,500 per head of family who had settled there They could not go on colonising a British

  1785
  white population in the Transvaal when each head of family cost from £1,200 to £1,500. This expense was primarily drawn from the resources of the Transvaal, but the great part of it had been paid for out of the £35,000,000 loan which had been guaranteed by this country In addition to that, he had discovered that upwards of £20,000,000 of our funds had been spent in the Transvaal during the two years since the war. How much more had yet to be traced? Then, there was the irrigation scheme. A most elaborate Report, approved by Lord Milner, recommended the expenditure of £30,000,000 on irrigation, which was one of the things that was to bring wealth to and develop the agricultural resources of the Transvaal. He believed irrigation was a most excellent thing, especially in such a country; but they had never heard anything more about it.
  Then, there was the debt of £30,000,000 that was to be repaid. Originally it was to be £170,000,000; in fact, enthusiasts spoke of the whole cost of the war being paid by the Transvaal. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] Yes; that was the burden of their song. Then it was to be £100,000,000; next £50,000,000, and lastly it came down to £30,000,000, But the £30,000,000 had not been paid, and he thought rightly because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had said, the equilibrium between expenditure and income had not yet been established. In other words, the Transvaal could hardly pay its own way. Here he would correct the hon. Gentleman opposite who seemed to think that he had said that, on the ground of sentiment, the debt of £30,000,000 due by the Transvaal should be forgiven. He had never put it on that ground. He was one of those who believed in maintaining the greatness of this country and the bonds of union between us and the Colonies. He sincerely desired to be just, not only to the Colonies but just to ourselves. When the Estimates for the Army and Navy were looked at, he thought there was no risk of our being unjust to the Colonies, but that a great risk was run of being unjust to ourselves. No one could see any real prospect of this money being paid or this debt being undertaken by the Transvaal, and, there-fore, it should be dismissed from our minds.
  1786
  He might be wrong. He should like to see those who fomented the war made to pay the whole of the debt; but it was impossible, from the nature of things, to say that a population of 300,000 could take on the burden of £35,000,000 for the loan and the £30,000,000 debt besides. He believed the Government were right not to press for the payment of the debt of £30,000,000, although he was not advocating any generous abandonment of it. But they ought to face facts, and not live in dreamland. He did not, however, imagine that there was any real prospect of getting it at all.
  Then they should remember the expectations of freedom being established in that country for which we went to war. Why, under the Ordinance issued two or three years ago—an Ordinance as autocratic as any ever issued in Russia—the Government of the Transvaal were enabled to put a man out of the country within twenty-four hours, without previous notice or explanation; and to arrest and keep a man in prison for three weeks without warrant or bringing him before a magistrate. He was quite sure such rules were as objectionable to the sentiment of the Colonial Secretary as to himself. The only other matter on which he wished to refer was the treatment of our Indian fellow-subjects. One of the grievances for which we went to war with the Transvaal was the unmerited and abominable treatment of these Indian natives when they went peacefully to that country. It was not disputed that the restrictions on our Indian fellow-subjects were now greater, or at least quite as strict, as during the time of the South African Republic.
  *MR. LYTTELTONsaid that a judgment had been pronounced by the Transvaal Supreme Court in either May or June last, which gave liberty to British Indians to trade. That was one of the objects sought, and sought in vain, from the old Transvaal Government by his predecessor and by the Indian Government. That judgment stood, and British Indian colonists had a licence to trade as a right. That was a substantially better position for them to be in than they were

  1787
  before the war, a position against which this country protested.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was very glad to hear that. His information must be belated, and the recent judgment must have escaped his knowledge. Was he to infer from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary that he was now satisfied the grievances of our Indian fellow-subjects had been removed? It was one thing to say that a grievance on a particular point had been put right; but another thing that all their grievances had been removed. He was certain that the position of our Indian fellow-subjects in the Transvaal was still a subject of dissatisfaction to the Government at home and had been the subject of remonstrance. If he was wrong he would say nothing further, but he believed he was right in saying the position of the Indians in the Transvaal was not satisfactory. He would not, however, labour the matter further, beyond expressing the opinion that it was our duty to keep a constant eye on what was going forward in South Africa. The true remedy would be the granting of responsible government, and until that was granted we should keep our eye on what went forward and not confine ourselves so closely to the one question of Chinese labour as to shut our eyes to all the other things that were constantly going on against the interest of the Transvaal and ourselves.
  MR. SPEARraised a question which he said closely affected a large number of his constituents. He hoped that if the Admiralty persisted in a large reduction of men in the dockyards they would accomplish that reduction as gradually as possible, and thereby minimise the sufferings of the labourers and avoid the disorganisation of labour generally in the particular districts. He recognised the importance of economy, and ventured to submit that the reduction of shipbuilding necessary in the interests of economy should fall on the private yards rather than on the dockyards. He fully recognised the importance of the Admiralty keeping in touch with the private yards and giving them a part
  1788
  of the work so that in times of crisis they should have a larger field in which to deal with the requirements of the Navy. But it was important, in the interests of the Government and the country, that our dockyards should be considered as the first source of supply both of new construction and repairs. All must recognise the importance of attracting to the dockyards the best workmen of all classes, because if there was a reduction in those workmen the status of the men would be lowered and the Navy would suffer in consequence. It was sometimes asserted that ships could be built cheaper in private yards than in the dockyards, but that had not been conclusively proved, and he did not believe that dockyards, carefully supervised and well managed, could not effectively produce hips and carry out repairs. This was a matter of very serious consequence to a large number of his constituents, and he appealed to the Secretary of the Admiralty to ensure that where a reduction was necessary it should fall rather upon the private yards than the dockyards, and thereby maintain the efficiency of the Government yards.
  The hon. Member also referred to the question of remounts or the Army, and stated that two years ago he suggested the importance of bringing into closer touch the buyer of Army horses with the breeder. They all knew the difficulty experienced during the late war of procuring the requisite number of horses. The advent of the middleman was bad both for the country and the producer. He suggested that the representatives of the Army should nominate a veterinary surgeon in each district, to make a register of horses suitable for Army purposes. Then a central place should be arranged to which the horses could be brought for inspection by Army buyers. This was a matter for consideration because the question of the native production of Army horses in the country was becoming a serious one. With the advent of motor-cars there was a lesser desire to breed horses than before, and, unless breeders were brought into direct communication with Army buyers there would be great difficulty in obtaining horses at all in the future.
  *MR. GEORGE WHITEdrew attention to the administration of the Education Department. He asser ed that the Act of 1902 was acknowledged by educationists on both sides of the House to be disappointing in the provisions made for the system of secondary national education, and, therefore, they were not surprised to find that progress under the Act had also been disappointing and left much to be desired. He would not have raised the question but that he felt that the Board of Education was to some extent responsible for the slow progress that had been made. The Board of Education some time ago issued regulations which dealt with some very important matters. First of all they apparently desired to prescribe a high minimum fee; they further wished to limit to a certain extent scholarships, and to establish a separate set of governors for these municipal secondary schools. Those interested in the spread of secondary education found a serious barrier to progress in these regulations. In the first place they aimed a blow at what seemed to be one of the main features of the Bill, that of co-ordination between elementary and secondary education. The idea that the Secretary to the Board of Education should give large powers to headmasters of schools, separate from the authorities of the district, was in itself a serious disadvantage, as it was regarded by the authorities as a desire on the part of the Government to set up something in the same line as the existing grammar schools. He was glad to acknowledge that the fresh circular letter which had been issued to some extent minimised the evils they saw in those regulations, and he believed that the circular had been issued in deference to widely expressed opinions of the authorities. The hon. Member desired an assurance that the spirit of that circular would not only be adhered to by the Department but that its scope would be considerably widened. Other circulars issued by the Board of Education had been partially withdrawn owing to the guiding hand of the private schoolmaster, and he feared the same pressure might be brought to bear upon this circular. He was jealous of anything that might deprive elementary schools of the benefits of secondary
  1790
  education. The Board of Education should give authorities support in this matter rather than place obstacles in their way, and he asked that this circular, which they welcomed, should not only be acted up to, but that the Board should leave local authorities larger discretion in the matter of fees and scholarship. He was jealous of anything that would interfere with secondary education in connection with the poorer children. Genius could always take care of itself, but genius was rare. There were, however, thousands of children who could be passed on to secondary schools with great advantage to themselve; and to the nation. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet might trust the education authorities not to pass on to secondary schools pupils who could obtain no benefit from them; ne ther need he be afraid that the schools would be made a great burden on the neighbourhood. Rather it should be the business of the Board of Education to give the education authorities a spur in this matter and not obstruct them in any way. He should, therefore, be glad to hear that this circular, which they all welcomed, would not only be acted up to, but that its scope would be extended in order to leave, local author ties a large amount of discretion in regard to the matter of fees and scholarships.
  As to elementary education he wished to congratulate the hon. Baronet on the step which he had taken some months ago in regard to children being removed from school to church for religious instruction. He was afraid that there, again, pressure was being brought to bear on the Board of Education, because the hon. Baronet departed to some extent from what was a very just and fair position. He should like to know what the persons who took the chi dren from school to church desired. They had already under the Education Act, which he regarded as a standing injustice, the power to appoint teachers, paid solely out of public funds, of the denomination to which the school belonged. That, he believed, was a great injustice to the nation, but surely they might then be content to leave the religious instruction in the hand, of the teachers. Further, the clergymen could give religious

  1791
  instruction in the schools themselves if I they desired. But now they were; face to face with this difficulty that, in the view of certain clergymen, religious instruction could only be given within the four walls of the church building. This ought to be resisted by the Board of Education. Such action would disorganise the schools to a very large extent, especially as the teachers were not allowed to accompany the children, which was a rule that the Board of Education very properly laid down. It was very difficult to determine where this proceeding would end. He saw the other day that a discussion took place in the Education Committee at Dover, where it was claimed that the children were to attend church on twenty-two Saints Days a year. They were extending the Saints Days to a very considerable number. He believed that his Roman Catholic friends were satisfied with less than a third, and he hoped the Board of Education would watch this development, and would not allow it to be carried to the extent it now was. The first object of the Board of Education should be the education of the children, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would remain firm in the original position he took up.
  With regard to what he considered the somewhat lax attitude of the Board of Education in regard to the adequate provision for the children in various districts, it was perfectly notorious that, prior to the Act of 1902, a great differentiation was made between Board schools and denominational schools, but when the whole of the maintenance was placed on the rates it was generally supposed that even justice would be meted out. The Board of Education, however, allowed schools to be maintained which were absolutely unsuitable to the purposes of education. He could give many cases in all parts of the country which would justify the position he had taken up, but he would confine himself to a few cases in his own locality. He would refer the hon. Baronet to King's Lynn. It was perfectly well known that the educational provision there had been exceedingly deficient for years, and if the Board of Education had done its duty a school board would have been started there long ago, Two years had elapsed since the
  1792
  Act came into force, and yet at this moment it was a positive fact that there were children in King's Lynn who could not find a place in any school in the town, and even if they did it would only be in a school which was in an insanitary condition. He was not bringing these charges against the denominational schools only, The other schools were also affected; but where they had a chairman of the education committee declare that a boy who left school at twelve made a better man than if he had remained until he was fourteen, and that an ignorant workman was better than an educated workman, the Board of Education should see that the education committee was kept up to its duty. In one school in his own city the building was condemned as a fire trap. It was decided to build a new school and statutory notice was given. Now, however, plans were submitted for making alterations which, it was admitted, would not make the school suitable. The Board of Education, instead of adhering to their original decision that a new school should be built, were now troubling about these plans. He felt, under the existing Act, parents who bore equal burthens should not have their children forced into insanitary schools because they happened to live in a particular part of the city, whereas children in another part were properly accommodated At Stow Bedon, a small parish with only fifty-five children, the clergyman was unable to maintain the school under the old Act, and leased it to the school board, but when the Act of 1902 came into force he declined to renew the lease, and the education authority at once applied to the Board of Education for power to build a school, which was given. Those connected with this transaction were, however, subjected to the most unwarrantable persecution. A small holder of land was given notice to quit, because the squire told him he had been one of the ringleaders in favour of the new school, and the woman who gave lodging to the new teacher had also had notice to quit. Yet the Education Department now supported the reopening of the denominational school in this tiny parish. He asked if that were done in the interests of education or in the interests of economy? What had these parties done

  1793
  to merit such consideration from the Board of Education? His object in bringing forward these matters was simply because he desired that the Board of Education should walk firmly and recognise that education was the first claim upon them. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet was deeply interested in the cause of education. He desired to do the very best he could to carry out the work of his Department, but pressure was being brought to bear from one quarter and another which often caused him to swerve from the right and straight path. It was necessary, therefore, that the Board of Education should know that when they promoted education rather than denominational interests they would have the support of hon. Members who sat on that side of the House.
  MR. KEARLEYreferring to the discharges in Government dockyards, said that when the question was raised on the Estimates the answer given was neither definite nor satisfactory, but it was agreed to delay pressing the matter until Vote 8 was reached. In view of the fact, however, that during the last few days a large number of additional notices of discharge had been issued, he thought the House were entitled to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to state definitely the policy of the Admiralty in the matter. When a somewhat similar state of affairs arose at the Sparkbrook Factory, Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, with the result that the discharges had been stayed on the ground that the policy was to be thoroughly inquired into by the Defence Committee. Thereupon his colleague in the representation of Devonport also wrote to the Prime Minister, but he had not succeeded in getting a similar gratifying announcement with regard to the dockyards. If the policy as it affected Sparkbrook was to be inquired into before further discharges were carried out, why was not a similar course adopted in regard to the dockyards? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the House what policy the Government had in view which necessitated these large discharges. The discharge of nearly a thousand men in Devonport in the
  1794
  depth of winter seemed exceptionally cruel, especially as the Government were showing their sympathy with the unemployed in other parts of the country. Were the Government really determined to give up new construction in the Government yards, as seemed to be foreshadowed by the First Lord's statement that new construction could be more cheaply carried out in private yards—a view with which he was glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, a former First Lord, did not agree. He had no desire to pick a bone as between private and Government yards, but as representing these men he felt bound to speak for them, especially as the Dockyard Expense Accounts showed that buildings in the Government yards were, at any rate, not more costly than in private yards. He desired to call attention to the case of the man Welsford, who met with an accident two years ago, which entirely incapacitated him. He had been awarded temporary deferred pay for six months, but when he came up for survey, instead of being allotted his pension, as he ought to have been, the matter had been deferred from time to time pending a decision of the Government medical men as to whether he was totally incapacitated. It was most unreasonable on the part of the Government to hold this man in suspense as to their ultimate decision. He knew Welsford to be of the highest integrity. He had visited him every time he went into the West, and he feared that before the Admiralty arrived at any decision the man would be dead. He was absolutely and totally incapacitated, and he (the hon. Member) thought he was suffering from softening of the brain. What was the difficulty in the report of the medical men? They did not assert that this man was not incapacitated.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIR ALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood bridge): They do.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he had never heard that before. He understood there was one obstinate man who could not give an opinion one way or the other. He hoped the hon. Member would state where the difficulty lay.
  *MR. DUKEsaid the question of dockyard discharges was a very serious one. Dockyard towns were dependent for their prosperity, and to a large extent for their existence, upon the policy of the Admiralty, and it did not appear at the present time that the Admiralty was exercising that discretion with regard to discharges which ought to be shown by a large employer of labour. The sudden removal from employment of hundreds of men without any previous notification caused a great deal of trouble and dissatisfaction in the district concerned. He did hope the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to tell the dockyard populations, through the House, what the intentions of the Admiralty were, and to assure those engaged in the dockyards that discharges would not be made in great numbers without some reasonable notice, so that the men could have the longest possible period to prepare themselves for the change. If the Admiralty would pursue some policy of that kind instead of ordering sudden discharges in hundreds, they would relieve themselves of some of the unpopularity which seemed to be not without reason at the present time, and also remove a great deal of difficulty from the local authorities. The mayors of both Plymouth and Devonport were in London about the matter, and his hon. friend might be assured that the policy pursued was causing in these towns a feeling very near to consternation.
  *MR. PRETYMANacknowledged the entirely reasonable character of the remarks which had been made, and was sorry there should have been a necessity for the strictures upon the Admiralty. The principles which were enunciated by the hon. Member for Tavistock and the hon. Members who followed him, were exactly those which had been followed, namely, that it was foreseen, as must have been foreseen by everyone in the House, that when there came a reduction in the programme of naval construction there must be discharges as business shrank, and from the moment it became evident that this was necessary the Admiralty considered how those discharges could be carried out in a manner to cause least inconvenience
  1796
  and distress. What the Admiralty then decided to do was to spread these discharges gradually over as long a period as possible, and that they should not in any one of the dockyards exceed twenty-five in the course of a week. He could not, however, ask that the Admiralty should be absolutely acquitted, because through an unfortunate misunderstanding there was some confusion in transmitting these distinct orders some time ago to the Admiral-Superintendents, and owing to this misunderstanding these notices were given by the Admiral - Superintendents at Portsmouth and Devonport entirely contrary to the intention of the Admiralty. Immediately this was discovered instructions were sent to all Admiral-Superintendents in the sense he had indicated, that no discharges were to be carried out, if it could possibly be avoided, at a greater rate than twenty-five per week. It was the object of the Admiralty to give the utmost possible notice, and to carry out these discharges in a manner which would cause the least inconvenience.
  As regarded the question between dockyards and private yards he would only say that, while repairs were more cheaply carried out in the dockyards, new construction as regarded cheapness, had been slightly in favour of private yards. But at the present moment ships were being constructed practically at equal cost in both yards. There was no intention to abandon new construction in the dockyards, and what was being done was as far as possible to adjust the total amount of new construction required as between the dockyards and the private yards. Bather the major part would go to private yards, of which the area was very much greater than the dockyards; but there would be a certain amount of new construction available for the dockyards. When the amount of new construction was reduced there must be less employment available. There was only this consolation, that I every sovereign which was not spent in the dockyards meant a reduction of taxation to that extent, and consequently that money was available in other directions. That meant, therefore, not an actual putting out of employment of

  1797
  labour, but simply a displacing of labour, and although displacing of labour was extremely unpleasant for those displaced at the time, yet, regarding it over the whole area, it did not mean that there would be less employment of labour throughout the country as a whole.
  As regarded Welsford, that was a very simple matter. Under the regulations a full pension could only be given, as the hon. Member himself had stated, in cases of total incapacity; and whether a man was or was not totally incapacitated, whatever the opinion of private individuals might be, could only be decided by medical professional opinion. They could not get away from that. The hon. Member might be absolutely right—and he and the hon. Member for Plymouth had taken great interest in this particular case—but the Admiralty could not be bound by the opinion of hon. Members, however active, they must take medical opinion, and medical opinion had been unable to certify that Welsford was totally disabled. Another examination was going to be made, and he might say that the facts which had been stated to the House were not quite accurate, because the last suggestion made came direct from the Admiralty to Welsford, and they asked whether he would prefer to be examined by a doctor in London or by a doctor at Torquay, and he had informed them that he would prefer a doctor at Torquay. That examination was now about to be carried out. He might say that every consideration had been shown, but until they got the medical certificate that he was totally disabled they were unable to grant the amount of his pension.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that after the passing of the Education Act of 1870 many working-class parents were ready and prepared to forego any wages their children might earn if provision could be made for the children receiving something more than the common standard of education in the ordinary elementary schools. Provision was made for higher education, and it was made cheap and effective for such parents as cared to forego the earnings of their children. That went on until the year 1895 when as a result of the Cockerton judgment it was decided that
  1798
  school boards in making this provision were doing what was quite wrong and it was declared illegal. School boards had since been ruled down to purely primary work of the ordinary standard. He did not think that the Government were really sorry to find that judgment given, because it provided them with an opportunity to curtail the work of education beyond the standards adopted by the great school boards for the common people. The Government endeavoured in 1896 to bring in a great measure of co-ordination and to build up anew upon the wreck of the school board movement caused by the Cockerton judgment. In 1902 the Government brought in what was from a great many points of view a great Bill by which they desired to systematise and link together every grade of education. Part III. had been in operation for some considerable time, and Part II. was intended to build anew the work which had been destroyed by the Cockerton judgment. It would be impossible for him to emphasise too strongly the criticisms which his hon. friend had passed upon the Board of Education in carrying out Part II. in respect to higher education. It was the first step that counted here, and if they went wrong and provided for a particular class as against the whole community; if they built secondary schools as a thing for a special class of the community and not for the whole nation, then they would have done something to cut more deeply the social differences which marked our people, and would have missed an opportunity of obliterating those differences and making the various classes of the community know each other better than they did at the present time.
  In endeavouring to add this superstructure to the educational system the Board of Education issued regulations for secondary schools, and the whole purport of them was to set up a social select class of school especially for the middle and professional classes, and not to be used by all classes of the community irrespective of their social position. He held in his hand a document which would do more harm to the well-being of this country than he could possibly describe, not only educationally Hit socially. Time was so short that he

  1799
  could only call attention to three points in these regulations to prove his statement that they were now building up schools for a class, notwithstanding the pledge which the Government had given that they would build these schools for the whole community, and set up secondary schools in their proper place in the national scheme of education. The first was Regulation 16, which told the great municipalities of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and London that if they wanted to set up a secondary school under the Act of 1902 and the Government gave them power, they would not be permitted to manage that school themselves. "The school must be conducted by a body of governors." That was at variance with both the spirit and the letter of the debates in 1902, in which the House was urged—and by no one more than the Prime Minister—to trust the local authorities, to whom practically all the power was to be given in this matter. The constitution of the governing body had to be such as the Board of Education could approve. He did not mind so much the approval of the Board of Education being necessary, but he should have thought that in consonance with the speech of the Prime Minister in 1902 the Board of Education should have left these great municipalities free to set up their schools in the meantime in the way that seemed best to them. If he were a member of a local education authority he would certainly not give to one of these secondary schools any part of public money unless, they conformed to the scheme of management which the authority for the locality thought wise and proper to impose. That would be carrying out the spirit of the Act of 1902. The regulation did not do that. The Board of Education, under another regulation, laid it down that these municipalities could not be allowed to have a secondary school in which the fees were less than £3 a year. In regard to the higher grade schools, where the fees had been sixpence or ninepence a week, what right had the Board of Education to insist that a working man for the education of his child should pay £3 a year? Such a minimum at once transformed the provision of secondary education in industrial and working-class communities into a class institution. It
  1800
  was a preposterous regulation, and he regarded it as a gross piece of impertinence on the part of the Board of Education to dictate to great municipalities the fees they should charge in schools largely supported out of their own rates. In the poorer part of St. George's, East Bristol, a high-grade school had been built up and the working-class people there had paid the fees with great difficulty, but now the Board of Education came down upon them and said that they must pay £3 a year. The third and last point was equally grave, and in this connection he pleaded for the child of the working-class parent who wished to give him the secondary education which it was understood he was to get. The regulation said—
  "The Board of Education will be prepared to sanction the remission of fees to individual scholars on sufficient grounds."
  But that was a very objectionable way of dealing with the matter. What right had the Board of Education, on the strength of that general regulation, to say, as they were saying, to the great municipalities that they should not have in their secondary schools more than twenty-five per cent, of free places? If the great municipality of Bolton was to have all the powers which they were promised according to the discussions in 1902, they would provide free places to save children from the factory and the workshop. Why should they not be permitted to do that? Who were the Board of Education to say that there should only be one place out of four free? He spoke with considerable indignation on this matter. These regulations were fatal to the working-class higher-grade schools. They were not justified by anything in the Act of 1902, and they would do most serious harm to the development of secondary education. He believed, however, by way of a death-bed repentance, that the Board of Education had issued a letter in which they climbed down a little. He hoped they would continue to climb down, and that they would leave the local authorities, subject to the veto of the Board of Education, where it was understood in 1902 they would be left—absolutely unfettered to carry out secondary education, not as a mere class or exclusive provision, but as a provision for the whole community.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he desired to refer, presently, to the topic on which the hon. Gentleman had spoken with so much indignation, but he would deal first with the matter of church attendance, which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. The hon. Member had said that the Board of Education had given way under pressure. He was not aware that the Board had departed under pressure from the position taken up. The Board came to the conclusion that the law of school attendance should be interpreted in a particular way, and to that interpretation they had adhered, and would continue to adhere. It was true that pressure was put on the Board of Education, but it was from every quarter—by the hon. Member's own friends, by Church people, by the advocates of secondary schools, by the ratepayers, and by the teachers. If pressure from all sides could keep a Government Department straight then the Board of Education had a better chance than any other Department. In regard to Stow Bedon he was not surprised that in the long tangle of the history of the controversy another hon. Gentleman should have gone wrong. The school was recognised as a certified efficient school and the Board had no choice in the watter. But no public money, whether from rates or taxes, had been or would be spent upon it. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying, whether under pressure or not under pressure, that the Board had allowed a school to be established contrary to the provisions under which schools should be established under the Act of 1902. He hoped the hon. Member would accept the assurance that the school of Stow Bedon was no expense to the ratepayers or the Exchequer. With regard to the schools at King's Lynn and Norwich, he undertook to make inquiry and see whether the provision of school places was inadequate.
  Coming to the question of secondary schools, he thought the indignation of the hon. Member for Camberwell was not altogether justifiable. The Board of Education held, first of all, that a secondary school should fulfil the conditions as to education which a secondary
  1802
  school was intended to fulfil. It was no compliment or benefit to the working classes to enable them to send their children to a school which was a secondary school in name, but an elementary school in reality, and the Board had been at some pains to define what a secondary school should be. They had to consider what the financial prospects of a secondary school would be when established, as well as the question of efficiency. Such schools, unless they were endowed, must depend upon the Parliamentary grant, the rates, and the payments of fees by the scholars; and the Board considered that, in the majority of cases, fees should be paid, The Board had never insisted on a particular standard of fees, but they endeavoured to determine the amount of the fee by the conditions of the locality, and the incomes of those who wished to send their children to the school.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the Board had not written to Bolton insisting that there should be a minimum fee of £3.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that no doubt n many cases they had suggested a minimum £3 fee; and he recollected pressing that last year on a local authority. He had heard since that the £3 fee had been paid and that the school was flourishing. Then, as to free places, which, of course, were independent of scholarships which might be conferred, they had the right to say that it would not be safe, having regard to the economic condition of a school, that more than 25 per cent, free places should be allowed. The charge of audacity or impertinence was wholly irrelevant, for, since Government money was granted, the Board had the right to satisfy themselves that the grants were made for the purpose which secondary schools ought to serve, and to insist that those grants should not be made except to schools which were economically as well as educationally efficient.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked why the Board could not trust the locality.
  *SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Board had had a longer experience even than a

  1803
  municipality or the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had complained that the Board required schools to have a body of governors, and had taken full control out of the hands of the local authority. But what was everybody's business was generally nobody's business. As a rule they could not govern a secondary school through a great county council or a large education committee of thirty of forty persons, and, in the result the government would very likely lapse into the hands of the permanent officials. Unless they established some such body of person, some of whom might be extraneous to the local authority, to whom the headmaster might submit get the work done as satisfactorily as it ought to be done. But the Board of Education had no desire to withdraw from the great local authorities such power as they ought to have over their secondary schools.
  *MR. YOXALLsaid it was very unsatisfactory to find that
  the Secretary to the Board of Education had completely misunderstood their complaint. They complained that upon the higher-grade school—the modern type of secondary school—the hon. Baronet wished to impose the old form, the cramping form, of the endowed grammar school. That was their complaint, and to justify it the hon. Baronet took refuge in a definition of what the Board of Education thought a secondary school should be. In his own city of Nottingham an attempt was made to establish three modern secondary schools, but the regulations which were imposed by the Board of Education prevented it being done. On account of the unsatisfactory reply, he begged to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
  And, it being Seven to the clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, put that Question.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes, 190. (Division List No. 93.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Campbell, Rt. Hn JA(Glasgow)

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. HnHugh O

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William Hart

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. SirH

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Worc.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chapman, Edward

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn. SirJ(Manc'r

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

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finlay, SirR.B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Colomb, Rt Hon. Sir John C. R.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Forster, Henry William

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bigwood, James

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bill, Charles

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Gordon, Hn. J. E(Elgin & Nairn

  Bingham, Lord

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Bond, Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Denny, Colonel

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Dewar, Sir T R(Tower Hamlets

  Gray, Ernest(West Ham)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Gretton, John

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bull, William James

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hain, Edward

  Butcher, John George

  Dixou-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell, RtHnSir H. E (Wigt'n

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.

  Maxwell, W. J H (Dumfriesshire

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Skewes-Cox., Thomas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Horner, Frederick William

  Moore, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stroyan, John

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn. Col. W

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuff, Charles

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Turnour, Viscount

  Knowles, Sir Lees.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Welby, Lt-Col. A CE (Taunton)

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Lawson, John Grant (YorksNR.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

  Whiteley, H (Ashton and Lyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col A. R.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Lowe, Francis William

  Renwick, George

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Younger, William

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Elibank, Master of

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Ellice, Capt. EC (SAndrw's Bghs

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Bell, Richard

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Benn, John Williams

  Cremer, William Randal

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

  Black, Alexander William

  Crombie, John William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blake, Edward

  Crooks, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boland, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Brand, Hn. Arthur G.

  Delany, William

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Brigg, John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gilhooly, James

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Gladstone, RtHnHerbert John

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Duffy, William J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dunn, Sir William

  Grant, Gorrie,

  Burns, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  1806

  1807

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Roche, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  M'Kean, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hammond, John

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Rose, Charles Day

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Runciman, Walter

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mooney, John J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Moss, Samuel

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Sheehy, David

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Newnes, Sir George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Norman, Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willams

  Spencer, Rt. HnC. R (Northants

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

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

  Stanhope, Hn. Philip James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Johnson, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

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

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Jones William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomson. F. W. (York, W. R.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Tillett, Louis John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

  Toulmin, George

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Malley, William

  Ure, Alexander

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Mara, James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lament, Norman

  O'Shee, James John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Langley, Batty

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Rea, Russell

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Levy, Maurice

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh. N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders'd

  Lundon, W.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

  Young, Samuel

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall and Mr. Shackleton.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY [29TH MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  1."That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st March, 1906."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,630,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution:—
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid a reduction had been moved with respect to this Vote in Committee, but there was so strong a feeling that the Army was greater than the country could afford that he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of voting for a reduction in the number of land forces of the country. Nobody could say we were justified in expending this enormous sum on the Army, and hon. Members on both sides agreed that there ought to be a substantial reduction both in the number of men and in the expenditure. Without further delaying the House, he begged to move a reduction of 10,000 men.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '221,300,' and insert '211,300.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  Question proposed, "That '221,300' stand part of the said Resolution."
  SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid there had been a great many experiments made upon the Army during the last few years, and there would probably be a good many more in the course of the next few years, but he thought the Empire could not be in a better state a regarded military security, for such experiments to be made, inasmuch as it had within its borders a force of some 400,00 men of military age who had been trained to modern warfare under modern conditions, and upon most of whom the Empire could rely in case of a national crisis. He hoped that before those men ceased to be of military age and available for service there would have been hammered out some scheme for providing the Empire with an efficient Army. He entirely agreed as to the necessity for the speedy re-armament of the Artillery. Our guns were undoubtedly outclassed by more modern inventions, but he seriously deprecated the alarmist talk which one heard in and out of the House as to the present field guns. He had had experience of those guns at both ends of the range. He had seen the excellent practice made by our gunners, and he had also, with his men, been the target at which those guns were aimed. During the South African War General De la Rey turned on the British troops some of the field guns he had captured, and, so far from those guns being absolutely obsolete and ineffective, he could assure hon. Members that, had the Boers burst their charges as well as they aimed and worked the guns, the then target would not have had the present opportunity of addressing the House. But he was not going, on the strength of a year's campaign in South Africa, to pose as an expert on War Office reorganisation. There were two or three points, however, upon which he had gained some little experience, and with regard to which he could speak with a certain authority. One of those points was the improvisation of troops in a time of national crisis. He believed that in such emergencies there would always be forthcoming a very large number of recruits
  1810
  of a much superior class to those who offered themselves in time of peace. He had under him in South Africa public school men, University graduates, men of position and influence at home, and men accustomed to field sports, and that, he believed would be the class of men who would come forward in all times of national crisis. For such men a much shorter period of drill was sufficient than was necessary with ordinary recruits who had never been accustomed to obey or to command. One great disadvantage he found was that while many of these men were accustomed to the use of a shot gun, hardly any of them were accustomed to the use of the rifle. He could see no reason why every boy in the country should not be trained in the use of the rifle, and he regretted there was no provision in that direction contained in the right hon. Gentleman's scheme.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.
  Further Consideration of Second Resolution deferred till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.

  SUPPLY [29TH MARCH] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Second Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,630,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he desired to call attention to certain matters connected with the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico. It was not his intention to go into the case of wages, piece-work, pay, or any of the labour conditions in the ordinary sense of the word, which had sometimes been raised on this Vote, and his reason for avoiding that class of subjects was that

  1811
  it was absolutely impossible to make them plain to the House of Commons owing to their technical character. There was a very simple mode of treating them, however, which was that the heads of the departments should take council freely, in the same way as ordinary employers, with the persons in their employ; that they should meet them freely and fairly, hear what they had to say, and thus become acquainted with all their demands. Although he was favourable to the Government manufacturing their own materials in this way, he was not favourable to the Army manufacturer. He did not believe that the heads of these departments should be soldiers, but civilians. He doubted the wisdom of making the soldier make his own clothes. Very often the soldiers placed at the head of these establishments had not the knowledge of the ordinary methods of dealing with labour which the private employer possessed. Two years previously that question was raised by the hon. Member for Clitheroe. At that time friction had arisen between the head of the Manufacturing Department, who was a soldier, and the workpeople and a petition had been refused by him on some rather pedantic ground. At the end of the wrangle, which lasted some time, it was suggested that the civilian Ministers responsible to this House might possibly receive the deputation which the military head of the factory had declined to receive and hear what the facts were. Through the good offices of the present Postmaster-General that deputation was received, not only by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but by the Secretary of State, and a great deal of good was done thereby. At the present time there was a difficulty with regard to Particulars, or, in other words, the basis upon which the actual wages of the workpeople were earned—a principle which originally existed in Lancashire, but which had extended first to Yorkshire, and now to all places where labour of this kind was employed. He thought it would be an advantageous thing if the civilian Ministers in this House would receive those officials who represented the workpeople and who were able to speak for them upon this matter.
  1812
  He moved the reduction to-day, however, on the ground of other conditions of labour which obtained at the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico. A year ago he had a controversy with the newly-appointed Financial Secretary with regard to the ventilation and undue heat prevailing in these works. There had been the death of a girl named Alice Wright, and the death had drawn a good deal of attention to the condition of the works. Although at the inquest it was found that Alice Wright did not die of the effects of heat, but of a weak heart, it was brought out in evidence that a greater number of women fainted under the conditions of heat prevailing in that factory than in similar factories of private firms. It was impossible to produce a private workshop in which the percentage of women fainting at their work was as high as at the Army Clothing Works at Pimlico. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, or the Army Council, or whoever might be responsible, for having at last called in the aid of the women inspectors of the Home Office in regard to this matter, a thing which had been urged by hon. Members and those who thought with hon. Members for years. There could be no doubt whatever that they were the proper persons to advise the Government in a case of works of this kind where a large number of women were employed. The reports of these women inspectors should now be made public and the Government should tell the House whether they now proposed to carry out the recommendations which had been made in those reports. A very deplorable state of things still existed at the Pimlico works. The water poured through the roof and the heat during some periods of the year was excessive. There was undoubtedly a very great deficiency in the number of pressing irons, and the result was that the women were forced to wait in the gallery where these pressing irons were heated and where the heat was exceedingly great, and it was in that gallery where most of the fainting had occurred. The conditions also of the large pressing room continued to be exceedingly bad, and in some parts of the building there was a total want of ventilation. It was principally to give

  1813
  the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of telling the House what the reports of the women inspectors were and what he hoped to be able to do as a result of those reports that he moved to reduce this Vote by the sum of £200.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£4,630,000,' and insert £4,629,800.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That '£4,630,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. SHAGKLETONsuggested that the paid officials of the organisation to which the workmen in the Army Clothing Factory belonged should be allowed to approach the heads of the factory on questions of pay and labour. He said he had for the past twenty-five years taken an official part in one of the largest organisations of pieceworkers, numbering something like 100,000 people, and had hid a good deal to do with the calculation of prices. Not one in 2,000 persons engaged in cotton weaving could calculate their own prices, and the difficulty of an outsider understanding how to work out the prices was therefore obvious. In Lancashire the calculations had to be done by paid officials who had received a special training. The officials of whom he spoke were the proper men to calculate the piece-work, and if they were allowed to do it much of the grumbling that was now heard would cease. The Government once a year received the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress in order that the complaints of the workers might be laid before them, and that being the case surely it was not too much to ask them to concede a minor point by receiving the men appointed by the workers in the Government workshops for the purpose of hearing their grievances. The longer he was in the House the more he felt that that was a true solution of the difficulty, and would obviate the necessity of many of the discussions there. He was glad that lady inspectors were allowed to visit the factories, but it was important that they should be allowed to go there when they pleased and not simply at the will of the officials. Ventilation, too, was important. In all Government factories
  1814
  there should be some approach to the standard for purity of air that obtained in the weaving sheds, where the system of ventilation gave nearly 3,000 cubic foot of air to each person.
  MR. CROOKScomplained that the practice had lately grown up of having officers' uniforms made at Pimlico and of bringing in Array pensioners to do the work, to the detriment of the skilled tailoresses who might do it. He also called attention to the insufficient wages paid to some of the unskilled labourers in the Government clothing factories.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT)said that the hon. Member for Woolwich was under a misapprehension as to the making of uniforms. Certain coats were made in the factories by men taken in for the purpose of qualifying as Army master tailors. They were skilled tailors and remained in the Clothing Department some eighteen months to obtain a certificate. From time to time the opportunity occurred in the factory of undertaking special work which women were unable to do, and which no one in the factory but those skilled tailors could do. They were put on what had been erroneously called the outdoor staff. The outdoor staff did exist, but only to this extent, that under certain conditions they were allowed, as a special indulgence, to have certain work to do at home. He was sure that the hon. Member opposite would approve of that practice. That was the outdoor staff, and there was no other. He thought the hon. Member would agree that at any rate there was no grievance in this particular case.
  With regard to the speech of the right hon. Baronet opposite, there was no man in the country or in this House who more thoroughly understood this subject than he did. He had for over thirty years past interested himself in the Royal Army Clothing Department, and he had, on many occasions, found fault where fault was to be found, and he had pointed out shortcomings wherever he felt that they existed. He was glad to

  1815
  gather from what he had said upon this occasion a sort of qualified approval at any rate of what had been done during the past twelve months to meet same of the objections to which he had referred. He had hoped for a more cordial expression of approval, because for the past twelve months every possible effort had been made to do all that was necessary to see that the workpeople in the Pimlico factory worked under proper conditions of sanitation, ventilation, and comfort, as well as receiving fair rates of wages. He did not believe that there was a better ventilated or more healthy factory in the country than that at Pimlico. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had seen many factories in his own county, and he invited him to go and see this factory at Pimlico. He could assure him that he would be most cordially welcomed, and if, with his great experience, he could make any suggestions they would receive the most careful consideration.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Can we have the inspectors' reports?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that at the present moment he was dealing with the hon. Member's argument that the factory at Pimlico was badly lighted and unhealthy. He could assure the hon. Member that there was not a finer equipped factory in the country. There were about 600 people working on one floor, and he defied anyone to see them at work without coming to the conclusion that they were working happily and contentedly. If they considered the conditions under which those people would have to work upon similar employment in other factories then there was no comparison either in regard to the conditions or the wages they would receive. The right hon. Baronet had told them a story about a large number of women fainting. Of course women fainted in other places besides factories, but he denied that a larger percentage fainted in the factory at Pimlico than in other factories, and he repudiated the suggestion that they fainted because of the condition of air in that factory. It was incorrect to say that the girl whose death had been mentioned had died in consequence of the condition of the atmosphere.
  1816
  The doctor at the inquest gave evidence to the effect that the girl was unfitted for any employment at all. It would have been a hard measure to get rid of her for that reason, and she had not been sent about her business. The atmosphere had been tested by a Home Office official, and it was found that the factory was thoroughly well ventilated. Factory inspectors had been invited to visit the factory, not on special days or at set hours, but when they pleased. Their visits this year had resulted in no complaint of any kind. That was all he had to say upon that point.
  The right hon. Baronet had objected to the system and principle upon which the rates of remuneration were fixed, which he said was unsatisfactory and unfair.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I did not allege that. What I said was that there appeared to be some difficulty about allowing the workpeople to be represented by a deputation.
  MR. SHACKLETON: The point is that any settlement of a dispute about wages is best effected through the officials of the workpeople's trades unions.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that any representations of the workpeople as to grievances would always be most carefully considered, but he could not assent to the proposition that any outside body should be permitted to intervene between the workpeople and the superintendent. He bad a great respect for the trades unions, but he believed that it was not in the interest of the workpeople or of their employers to permit the intervention of an outside body.
  MR. SHACKLETON: But in this case it is their own union.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the workpeople could represent their grievances through the proper channel, and they could come to the highest authority and have their complaints considered.
  MR. BELL: What is the good of a trades union under those circumstances?
  MR. SHACKLETON: Am I to understand that the hon. Member objects to a trades union choosing their own representative to place their grievances before the heads of the department?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No. What he did object to was that representative should be chosen by anybody but those concerned in the grievance, and that the statement of the grievance should be put forward by anybody except those concerned in it. If there were a grievance the person concerned in it should state it themselves or by deputation. He did not say that there were no circumstances an conditions under which a trades union other than the union of those employed in a factory could approach his right hon. friend. He did not lay down that proposition. As the hon. Member had stated, his right hon. friend was going to receive a trades unionist deputation in a few days. If there happened to be any large question affecting wages generally he was quite sure that his right hon. friend would not object to receiving representatives from any authoritative trades union.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Let us understand clearly where we are. What we ask for is that the workmen and the workwomen in the employ of the Government at this factory shall be allowed to choose their own official, who need not be a worker in that factory, but who may understand the case as well as he workpeople themselves.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I quite understand what the hon. Member means.
  MR. SHACKLETON: But do you admit that right?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Then you do not admit one of the first principles of trades unionism.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he did not admit that it was a desirable thing to allow the men and women workpeople in Government employment to
  1818
  choose the officials of a trade union, who might not be workers in a Government department, to represent their grievances. Some of the women in this factory were receiving 32s. a week, and their average wage was over 20s. In conclusion, he had only to say that they welcomed any suggestion which was for the improvement of the factory. They had no object except to do the very best they could for the factory and those engaged in it. He invited the right hon. Baronet and other Members who wished it to go and see the factory for themselves, and he was convinced they would agree that it was one of the best factories in the United Kingdom.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERasked if there would be any objection to placing the report which the inspectors made to the Home Office before the House when it was received, because then they would know exactly the conditions reported upon, and they would be able to form their own conclusions.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I would welcome that course, but it is evident that I cannot commit the Home Secretary in this matter. I have never seen this report or heard anything of it, and still less have I heard of any complaint. I cannot pledge my right hon. friend in the matter, but if there be such a report I have no objection whatever to the course suggested.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he had had a great deal to do with the trades unions and he quite understood and sympathised with the desire of every employer to be spoken to by his employees without the intervention of any one outside. But where large numbers were employed it was evident that there were those who thought their personal relationship with their employer would be affected and prejudiced if they made individual complaints, however justifiable their complaints might be. These suspicions were enough to make them choose somebody outside, such as the trades unions, to represent them. Employers of labour in the House must admit that where large bodies of workmen were employed it was

  1819
  expedient in the interests of the workers that they should choose their own representatives. If a private employer recognised this why should not the Government recognise it? Why should the Government be the one exception in the country? What reason of public policy was there that this elementary right of trade unionists should be denied to Government employees? It could not be for electioneering purposes. Electioneering reasons and political pressure could be brought to be r entirely apart from this Everybody who knew anything about, trades, unions in this country knew that one of their elementary rights was to claim, and properly so to negotiate through their own representatives in all disputes with their employers. He thought the Government was very badly advised indeed to continue to resist this elementary right of trades unionists of the country.
  MR. BELLsaid he could not allow the remarks of the Financial Secretary to pass without making some protest. He had always regarded the Government as a body who ought to set a fair and good example to all employers of labour in the country. But by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks it was shown to be far and away behind most employers in the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had no objection to trades unions. In fact, he respected them; but it was only a farce to suggest anything of the kind when he declined to have anything to do with their representatives. No one would have objections to trades unions if they had regard to the functions for which they existed. He had been a trades unionist for twenty-seven years, and he was glad to say he found employers in the country of quite a different opinion from that of the hon. Member opposite. He had within the last two or three weeks been sent for by employers, which showed that the employers desired rather to deal with the representative of the men than with the men themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had not convinced him that if employees of the Government put forward their own cases they would not be subject to victimisation. They had seen too many instances of the kind to believe any such statement. He did not suggest
  1820
  that the heads of the Government Departments would countenance such a thing, but there were too many officials between them and the workmen, and those officials were the people to find paltry and insignificant excuses to get rid of the employees if they dared to make complaints. He protested against the attitude of the hon. Gentleman in declining on behalf of the Government to discuss with or receive the official representatives of those people. If the hon. Gentleman found himself in any Court he would engage the best counsel he could get to state his case. What was good for him was good for the workmen. The workmen had a perfect right to engage whom they thought proper to represent them in any questions between them and their employers. If the right hon. Gentleman was to press this on the lines he had taken up he would press it to an absurdity, because the taxpayers were the real employers and the workmen would then negotiate with their employers—the taxpayers—direct. The hon. Gentleman was simply the agent of the taxpayers in the office he held, and the employees, he submitted, had the same right to appoint their agent. The attitude of the hon. Gentleman would create a good deal of disaffection amongst the employees for which he would be responsible after his observations that night.
  MR. BENNtook exception to the remarks which had fallen from the Financial Secretary to the War Office with reference to the relations between the War Office and their employees in the clothing factories. To say that those who served the Government in the humblest walks of lie and who were unable to voice their grievances were to be debarred from employing somebody else to state their case was one of the most monstrous things he had heard in the House of Commons. He was sure the statement must have arisen from want either of experience or of information. On the London County Council it was found extremely convenient to have the case stated by those who had time and ability to put it in the briefest and most practical form, and, in the light of such experience, he hoped the hon. Member opposite would reconsider his decision and allay

  1821
  the dissatisfaction which his policy must cause. He spoke as representing a constituency with a very large number of Civil servants, and it would be a very great grief to them to hear that their grievances were only to be put forward by those immediately concerned in any workshop or factory. He hoped this policy would be reconsidered at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid that in the case of piecework, the piece-worker was not allowed to get assistance to see whether the piecework he was working on was right or not. If a piece-worker was dissatisfied, and was not able to get somebody in whom he had confidence to advise him, there would never be any content in the Government factories. The Financial
  Secretary had not given any answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Clitheroe. He thought they ought to allow some outside assistance to these people, who were not either accountants or auditors. They ought to have some one chosen by themselves in have some one chosen by themselves in whom they had confidence. He thought they ought to have the factory inspector's report. They wanted the report that was furnished to the Home Office. He thought it ought to have been furnished to the War Office. He considered that the House was entitled to a copy of it, and he hoped they would have it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 137. (Division list No. 94.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickinson, Robert, Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon. Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O

  Dorington, Rt Hn. Sir John E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Balcarres Lord

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Lawson, Hn. H. L W (Mile End

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant (YorksN. R

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Bigwood, James

  Forster, Henry William

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bingham, Lord

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Bond, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brodriek, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bull, William James

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton. Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Wore

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Helder, Augustus

  Manners, Lord Cecil

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants)

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Moore, William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Renwick, George

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Percy, Earl

  Scott, Sir S (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, John Ward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Randles, John S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir W. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Turnour, Viscount

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

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

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayter, Rt Hn Sir Arthur D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hell, Richard

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Benn, John Williams

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Blake, Edward

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Boland, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Johnson, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Roche, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  Burns, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Cameron, Robert

  Kilbride, Denis

  Seely, Maj. J. E B. (Isle of Wigl t

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Sheeny, David

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, F.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Crombie, John William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tillett, Louis John

  Crooks, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  M'Kean, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andr'ws Bghs

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Young, Samuel

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  O'Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Charles Dilke and Mr.

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to call attention to a matter which had already been before the House, and in

  1825
  regard to which the answers given were not satisfactory, namely, the purchase of 20,000 suits of clothes at 11s. 9d. each by the Clothing Department of the War Office, and the sale of 10,000 at 5s. 6½d., and 10,000 at 5s. 7frac12;d. each. That showed an enormous loss, and the only reason given was that too many suits were bought and that there was no room to store them. It was stated in answer to a Question that the number of Boer prisoners had been over-estimated. That was rather an unsatisfactory Answer considering that the whole of the transaction took place within the last twelve months. If the War Office had no place to store the clothes, it surely would have been cheaper to hire part of a warehouse to store them than to waste 40 per cent. of the price by selling them. He could not help thinking that the reason for disposing of the clothes was not want of accommodation, but really because the War Office, being anxious to reduce the Estimates for one year, sold the clothes at a sacrifice. He supposed there was a possibility of the War Office expenses having to be found by another Government next year, and that those responsible for the War Office at present were anxious to show that their management had been very good. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the War Office would give a more satisfactory explanation than had yet been offered of this large loss of money. He further desired to know if the Home Office inspector's report on the Army Clothing Factories would be published, even if it was a bad one. He believed it was already in print and that some hon. Members had seen it.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It has not been seen by me, and it has not come before the Department yet.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it was a great pity that the hon. Gentleman should not have seen it The officials connected with the Clothing Department should have seen it. He believed the report did not give so beautiful a description of the state of things as the hon. Gentleman gave in his speech. He was informed that the suits which were sold at 5s. 7½d. each were bought by a Mr. Moses, and that they were being retailed at 7s. 6d. The placing of clothing on the market in that way was conducive to sweating,
  1826
  and that was a form of dumping which should be avoided.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that after what had occurred in connection with some other departments of the War Office they were naturally very anxious to watch all matters of this kind. They had recently been told that the War Office sold oats at half the contract price when they were actually buying from the same contractors in the same month the same kind of article at full price. He agreed with the last speaker that the clothing transaction had been largely due to the desire of the present occupants of the War Office to make their accounts seem better than they really were. They had used appropriations-in-aid in an extraordinary way to make an apparent reduction of their total demand in the Estimates. What he wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office was whether it was a fact that the War Office had been putting out tenders for clothing at the same time as they were selling off surplus stores of a similar kind at more than fifty per cent. below the contract price. If that was the case, it was clear that it had been done to gain a little financial credit at the expense of the taxpayers. If the War Office store houses were full it would surely have been better to hire an outside warehouse in which to place the 20,000 suits than to give fresh orders for similar clothing during the coming financial year.
  *MR. BARRANsaid there was further evidence, outside anything that appeared in the Parliamentary Papers, that there was want of co-ordination between the different departments of the War Office. It was not an uncommon thing for large quantities of material, such as serge, to be sold at very low prices, while in the ordinary course of events similar material was being purchased for other departments at the same time, or would certainly be required in a short space of time. He could tell the Financial Secretary of sales by public auction which had taken place, after being advertised, within the last few months at which hundreds, if not thousands of pounds worth of goods had been sold of the type, or near the type, which manufacturers, if not contracting for

  1827
  now, would probably be asked to contract for shortly. There was no reasonable excuse why the goods which were being sold should not be employed instead of that which would be bought later on. This was not a matter that was occurring at the present time only. It was a matter of notoriety that great bargains could be picked up at these War Office sales. The only valid excuse was that the goods were unfit, but if that were advanced the question would arise how goods which were unfit were allowed to pass into stock. Yesterday he had asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent disclosures, he would press through Parliament a Bill for the prevention of secret commissions. It would perhaps not be right for him to say anything with regard to the War Office in connection with any matters which were not under consideration at the present time. He wanted to point out that in the general trade of the country where matters of this kind cropped up, a wise person would take the requisite steps to prevent anything of the kind occurring in the future. Without wishing to reflect on any particular individual or firm, he would say that certain branches of commerce were honeycombed by such practices.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that unless the hon. Member could connect his remarks with some particular case connected with the Vote, he was not in older.
  *MR. BARRANsaid he was sorry to have travelled beyond the limits of discussion. He had merely wanted to throw out a suggestion. There were many matters of wastefulness in connection with the War Office which were well known throughout the trade in this and other cities, and which needed far more careful attention than they had received in the past.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that in almost all the Departments there had been enormous waste in connection with the South African War. Of his own knowledge he knew that large numbers of Army regulation boots, similar to those which were being taken in at this moment at the Clothing Depôt at about 11s. per
  1828
  pair, were being sold retail at from 5s. 6d. to 5s. 9d. per pair. He presumed, from what he knew of the trade, that the gentlemen who purchase these boots must have given from 2s. 6d. to 3s. per pair for what cost the War Office three-and-a-half times that money. He was assured that these goods were sold at the ruinous prices mentioned because they were offered in such large quantities. If tenders for smaller quantities had been asked for better prices would have been obtained. Moreover, these were goods not of a perishable nature, and could have been transhipped from South Africa at a small cost, and issued to the troops here. There had undoubtedly been a waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and he intended to put one or two Questions to the Secretary of State for War on this matter in order to elicit the facts as they had been presented to him.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he thought it was an understood thing that the sales in South Africa were not to be dealt with at this time.
  MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid that that only referred to the Report of the Auditor-General.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he greatly regretted, indeed he protested, against the suggestion, the innuendo, that was conveyed throughout the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds. The hon. Member referred to secret commissions and said that that was a direction in which a wise person would insist on reform. Surely every man should have a fair trial and not be condemned until he was impartially heard. When the hon. Member could point to one single example in which the contract branch of the War Department had had even a suspicion attached to it, then, and only then, he would be entitled to talk of the exposure of the War Office. He should be greatly surprised if the hon. Member was at any time in the future able to point to a single instance in which the contract branch had been in any way to blame. In reply to the hon. Member for Lichfield, he had to say that, if there was a report of the inspector on the Royal Army Clothing Factory, he had not seen it, but, if it

  1829
  were the case that it contained a suggestion of some shortcomings, he would at once proceed to make any amendment that was possible. The hon. Member could not imagine that the War Office had any other object in view except that the factory employees should pursue their occupations with all comfort, convenience, and happiness, consistent with their duty to the taxpayers. The hon. Member also referred to the sale of 20,000 suits of clothes which were purchased in connection with the war in South Africa.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid his information was that the suits were made at a much more recent date than that.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTreplied that the hon. Member's information was entirely incorrect. These suits were made for war purposes, and they were sold because, the war having come to an end, there was no further use for them. They were purchased for the purpose of clothing Boer prisoners, and our own soldiers when they obtained their discharge. It was very regrettable that any public property should be sold at a loss. But owing to the conditions of war the Government had to pay an inflated price for what they required, partly because they were the principal purchaser. The end of the war came very suddenly, and then not only did the principal purchaser cease to buy, which in itself would affect the price, but the Government became the principal seller, and it was not surprising if under such conditions the price fell even 50 per cent. The cost of storage accommodation was very great, and he was not anxious largely to increase it. They had retained four years supply and sold 20,000 suits. The clothes which were purchased for the Boer prisoners were not, unhappily, of that size which was suitable for the troops of the British Army—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"]—they were a great deal too large. The 3,000 suits which they were now buying were of a special size which was running short. He assured the House that when they sold they got the best price that could be obtained; they invited no fewer than 123 firms to tender, and took the highest tender.
  MR. WHITLEYasked if the hon. Member could give the House the date of the purchases.
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that they were all purchased before the termination of the war. He had no knowledge whatever of the purchases of the boots.
  *MR. LEVYsaid that if there was not corruption at the War Office, the idea was Very widely prevalent that justice was not done to all the people who wished to tender, and that goods were accepted from certain firms or individuals at exceedingly high rates, and frequently goods were purchased in quantities largely in excess of the requirements of the War Office and were then sold at prices much under cost. It was a fact that in the early stages of the war very large contracts for khaki drid were given to merchants in the City of London, not one yard of which was made by the firms who received the contracts, whereas orders were refused to the manufacturers who made the khaki drill and supplied the merchants who received the contracts and themselves tendered at a much lower price than was paid by the Government.
  MR. LYELLsaid the first criticism which could be levelled against the War Office was that they did not know the Value of a good storekeeper. Was it conceivable that the War Office could not have obtained storage and insurance for these 20,000 suits at a tenth of the cost which the sales realised? He did not level at the War Office any charge of corruption or any insinuation that they had received private commissions in connection with these sales. But he did charge the War Office with a want of business capacity which would have brought a private firm into the Bankruptcy Court in a few months.
  *SIR A. HAYTERsaid the Financial Secretary to the War Office had omitted one very important fact in connection with the surplus clothing. When soldiers were discharged they were offered a suit of clothing or, instead,

  1831
  a gratuity in money. Looking at human nature as it was, the majority of the men took the money and not the clothing. Hence much of the surplus supply of clothing. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that, whenever a sale of public property took place, the officer who conducted the sale should give a certificate that the prices obtained were the best that could be obtained in the circumstances, had been given effect to in the case of the sale of this clothing?
  *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he did not know of the existence of such a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee, but he had the assurance of his right hon. friend the Secretary for War that he approved of the recommendation and would see that it was carried out.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 215; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 95.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Jessel, Captain Herb. Merton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir J. C.

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn Col. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W, (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Bigwood, James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bill, Charles

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lieut. Col. A. R.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bull, William James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Butcher, John George

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gretton, John

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Greville, Hn. Ronald

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'hampton)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E,

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Helder, Augustus

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moore, William

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Renwick, George

  Tuff, Charles

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Sadler, Cel. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Peel, Hn. W. Robert Wellesley

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Percy, Earl

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, John Ward

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Randles, John S.

  Stroyan, John

  Younger, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Moss, Samuel

  Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hammond, John

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayter, Rt Hn. Sir Arthur D.

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

  Blake, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Dowd, John

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Mara, James

  Bright, Allan Heywood

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Partington, Oswald

  Burns, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Caldwell James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Cameron, Robert

  Johnson, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reddy, M.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.

  Crombie, John William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crooks, William

  Lamont, Norman

  Roche, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Delany, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Russell, T. W.

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Emmott, Alfred

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  M'Crae, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  M'Kean, John

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Stevenson, Francis S

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Sullivan, Donal

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  1834

  1835

  Tennant, Harold John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Young, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Toulmin, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Warner and Mr. J. H.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Whitley.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  And it being after Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, proceeded to put forth with the Questions necessary to dispose of the Report of Vote A of the Army Estimates.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the
  year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  To which an Amendment had been proposed [30th March], to leave out "221,300," and insert "211,300."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  Question put, "That '221300.' Stand part of the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 230; Noes 173. (Division List No. 96)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John. C. R.

  Gretton, John

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Halsey, Rt Hn. Thomas F.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Crossley, Rt. Hn. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cubitt, Hn. Henry

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hay, Hn. Claude George

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Banbury, Sir Fredk. George

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, Sir. Jas. (Staffords N. W.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Helder, Augustus

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bigwood, James

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Bill, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bingham, Lord

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hoult, Joseph

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bond, Edward

  Egerton, Hn. A. de Tatton

  Hozier, Hn. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Brassey, Albert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Bull, William James

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Butcher, John George

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

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Keswick, William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Chamberlayne, T (S'thampton

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Leveson,-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stroyan, John

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Pease, Herb. Pike, Darlington)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Tuff, Charles

  Lowe, Francis William

  Percy, Earl

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Turnour, Viscount

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E H (Sheffield)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. Alfred

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Webb, Colonel Wm. George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Renwick, George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wortley, Rt Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Round, Rt. Hn. James

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

  Sackville, Col. S. G Stopford

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Younger, William

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Moore, William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Viscount Valentia.

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N E.)

  Delany, William

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

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Allen, Charles P.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutchinson, Dr Chas. Fredk.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Duffy, William J.

  Johnson, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellice, Capt. E. C (SAndrw's Bghs)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bell, Richard

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire

  Benn, John Williams

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark,N E

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Black, Alexander William

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joyce, Michael

  Blake, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Boland, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Brigg, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Burns, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Caldwell, James

  Griffiths, Ellis J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Cameron, Robert

  Guest, Hn. Ivor Churchill

  Lundon, W.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hammond, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harcourt, Lewis

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Crae, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Kean, John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Crombie, John William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

  Crooks, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Moss, Samuel

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Murphy, John

  1838

  1839

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tennant, Harold John

  Norman, Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W,

  Roche, John

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, J Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Mara, James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Shee, James John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Partington, Oswald

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wilson, J W (Worcestersh, N.)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Young, Samuel

  Priestley, Arthur

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Rea, Russel

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Sullivan, Donal

  Warner and Major Seely.

  Reddy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution"
  The House divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 155. (Division List No. 97.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Gardner, Ernest

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Chapman, Edward

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bagot, Capt, Josceline FitzRoy

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Guest. Hon. Ivor. Churchill

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Denny, Colonel

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Bigwood, James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Bill, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bingham, Lord

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Helder, Augustus

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doughty, Sir George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W)

  Bond, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Brassey, Albert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hope J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Butcher, John George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Finbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Keswick, William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Moore, William

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spear, John Ward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Stroyan, John

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lee Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tuff, Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Turnour, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Randles, John S.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ratcliff, R. F

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Woff, Guatav Wilhelm

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Worsley-Taylor, Hemy Wilson

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Younger, William

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Viscount Valentia.

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Scott, Sir. S (Marylebone, W.)

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Allen, Charles P.

  Duffy, William J.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Lamont, Norman

  Bell, Richard

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Benn, John Williams

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Black, Alexander William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Blake, Edward

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Levy, Maurice

  Boland, John

  Gilhooly, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lundon, W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Grant, Corrie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hammond, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Caldwell, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Crae, George

  Cameron, Robert

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Kean, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mooney, John J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Moss, Samuel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

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

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Crombie, John William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Norman, Henry

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Johnson, John

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Delany, William

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  1842

  1843

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Toulmin, George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Robson, William Snowdon.

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Roche, John

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  O'Dowd, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Malley, William

  Russell, T. W.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Mara, James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sheehy, David

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

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

  Price, Robert John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Woodhouse Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Young, Samuel

  Rea, Russell

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Barran and Mr. Soares.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Tennant, Harold John

  Resolution agreed to.

  Resolution, which upon March 23rd was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, read, as followeth—
  "That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, including 20,211 Royal Marines."
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster, Mr. Pretyman, and Mr. Bromley Davenport do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this measure had had a very eventful
  1844
  Parliamentary career. It was introduced in 1892, and took six or seven years to pass through the House of Lords, during which it underwent an enormous amount of amendment. Marine insurance had this peculiarity: for 500 years it had stood as part of the common law of the country without a single Act of Parliament dealing with it. The reason was obvious. In dealing with a constantly changing subject such as shipping, it was impossible to lay down on the Statute-book any fixed principles.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and, being returned,
  MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1905.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CALDWELL (continuing)regretted the interruption which had taken place, as he was anxious to conclude his remarks on the Second Reading so that the Bill could go to a Select Committee. It was obviously a measure which could not properly be dealt with in the ordinary way by the Standing Committee on Law. It was a codification Bill, involving a knowledge of common law,

  1845
  marine insurance, and the question of transferring it from the common law to statute law. If hon. Members thought, that by such a measure the law would be made more definite or clear they were making the greatest mistake of their lives. He was prepared to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee, who would probably take as many years to revise it as were taken in another place.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs)said the Bill was one to codifiy the law relating to marine insurance, and he agreed with the hon. Member that it was not a measure suitable to be dealt with by an ordinary Grand Committee. Very careful attention would have to be given to every clause, and he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member that it should go to a Select Committee if the House would allow the Second Reading on that understanding.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the charge upon the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may
  1846
  be required to make good liabilities arising out of the default of the Public Trustee or his officers appointed under any Act of the present session to provide for the appointment of a Public Trustee and Executor, and to authorize the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of the salaries and other expenses payable in pursuance of such Act."

  NURSES REGISTRATION COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the expediency of providing for the Registration of Nurses.
  Ordered, That Dr. Robert Ambrose, Major Kenneth Balfour, Mr. Charles Douglas, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Dr. Hutchinson, Mr. Mount, Lord Morpeth, Mr. Pierpoint, Mr. Tenuant, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, and Sir John Batty Tuke be members of the Select Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, that Five be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF KENMARE.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom made to the House of Lords on Tuesday last, that the right of the Earl of Kenmare to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, 5 together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Torpoint Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
Malvern Water Bill; Leven's Patent—(Petition for Bill). Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting) Bill [H.L.]. The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 20th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
South Lancashire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA, No. 3 (1905).
  Memorandum on the state of the African Protectorates administered under the Foreign Office (in continuation of "Africa, No. 10, 1904").
  General Annual Report of the British Army, for the year ended 30th September, 1904.
  POST OFFICE.
  Postal agreement for an exchange of money orders between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Russia, dated the I7th (29th) October, 1904.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DE PARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Memorandum by the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign and Colonial laws relating to compensation for injuries to workmen. Vol. III. Supplementary Appendix.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Return of the areas, population, and valuation of counties, burghs, and parishes in Scotland.

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Returns for the year 1903–1904.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Order in Council, dated 22nd February, 1905, giving effect to Rules of Court. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Public Health Acts. Was presented by the Lord Hylton; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 39.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

  THE BRITISH MISSION TO THE AMEER.
  LORD REAY: My Lords, seeing the Under-Secretary of State for India in his place, I wish to ask him the following Questions, of which I have given him private notice: (1) has the Dane Mission left Cabul, as stated in the public Press; (2) has an Agreement been concluded with His Highness the Ameer of Afghanistan; (3) can the noble Marquess indicate the general purport of that Agreement; (4) will any Papers be laid on the Table of the House with reference to these negotiations.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Marquess of BATH): My Lords, the Ameer and Mr. Dane have signed an Agreement which is in confirmation of the Agreement which existed between the British Government and the late Ameer. This Agreement will be laid on the Table as soon as its precise terms reach us from India. I believe that Mr. Dane with his Mission has left Afghanistan, and is due to arrive in India on April 8th.
  LORD REAY: Can the noble Marquess give any general indication of the contents of the Agreement?
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: It is in confirmation of the Agreements which existed between the British Government and the late Ameer.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It does not go beyond that?
  THE MARQUESS OF BATH: No, I do not think it does.

  SERVICE OF MILITIAMEN BILL [H.L.] [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I do not, of course,
  1652
  deny that this Bill, which has been prepared by the Army Council and which I am asking your Lordships to read a second time to-day, involves a considerable change in our present military system, but I claim that the change is not so great as may at first appear. For centuries we have had a force in this country earmarked for home defence and known as the Militia, and though alterations have taken place from time to time in its conditions, for the greater part of the time that this force has existed the same principles will be found to underlie it. The Militia has been essentially a territorial force organised round the county. The Lord-Lieutenant had complete control of it. He could arm it as he liked. It was earmarked for the suppression and defeat of "insurrection, rebellion and invasion." Its expenses were paid by local owners of property. The nation only paid the expenses of the Militia during active service, and offences by Militiamen were punished by the civil magistrate. The force was practically a civil and not a military force.
  These were the main principles underlying the Militia for centuries down in fact to the middle of the eighteenth century. These principles I claim, are utterly unlike the principles underlying the Militia at the present day. In the middle of the eighteenth century there was introduced what proved to be that very expensive and very unpopular measure the ballot. I notice that non-attendance, disobedience of the ballot, was punished by the fine of 1s. or the spending of an hour in the stocks, and I often wonder whether the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wemyss) who is so anxious to revive the ballot, is also anxious to revive this ancient constitutional practice. It was not really till 1802 that the Militia began to assume the complexion under which we now know it. In 1813 an Act was passed whereby it was made possible for the King to accept offers of the Militia to serve abroad, and it was not until 1862 that the Estimates in connection with the Militia forces were framed under the direction of a Secretary of State. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will remember, if it is argued that in bringing forward this Bill we are absolutely changing the constitution of this force, that it

  1653
  is not the first change that has taken place in the principles underlying it. From time to time it has undergone considerable modifications to meet modern requirements, and it is only because we wish to bring it into yet further conformity with modern requirements that this Bill is submitted to your Lordships.
  Now, what are the principal reasons for this change? They are two in number. The first is undoubtedly the growth in the power of the British Fleet. That growth enabled the Prime Minister to declare eighteen months ago his belief that serious invasion need not be apprehended. That declaration recognises the Navy as the bed-rock of our national defence, and the natural corollary follows that the bulk of our military forces are required for service beyond the seas. I cannot help noticing that the declaration was made eighteen months ago, and that during the whole of last session it was not directly assailed in your Lordships' House. We have, roughly speaking, 600,000 men amongst the forces of the Crown; of that number 360,000, or sixty per cent. are earmarked for service at home in the defence of these shores; and I claim that it is an illogical position that when you admit that your Army is mainly required for service beyond the seas only forty per cent, of your forces should be earmarked for that purpose. There is another reason, I presume, for this change. It is a reason connected solely with the question of home defence. I refer to the growth of the Volunteers. In the centuries during which we looked to the Militia as the force earmarked for home defence the Volunteers did not exist. During the last fifty years the Volunteers have been created and have considerably increased, and it is our belief that we can look to them for that home defence for which, in old days, it was necessary to look to the Militia.
  I would remind your Lordships of the position in which we invariably find ourselves with regard to the Militia in time of war. It is a notable fact that in the case of each of the three largest wars in which we have been engaged during the last hundred years we have had to call in the aid of the Militia. I do rot think that can be better illustrated than in the language of the noble Earl
  1654
  opposite (the Earl of Wemyss) in a speech which he made last July. It is a long extract, but in view of the importance of the subject and the clearness with which the position was stated, perhaps I may be pardoned for reading it. The noble Earl said—
  "In 1803 15,000 Militia Volunteers joined the Army; in 1808 the local Militia was, in addition, established; 20,000 Militiamen volunteered then for the Army for twelve months. In 1812 three strong battalions joined the Army. During the ten years from 1803 to 1813 100,000 Militiamen passed into the Regular Army. In 1815 Militiamen in great numbers joined the Army and served at Waterloo. In 1854 we had the Crimean War, during which fifty battalions of Militia volunteered for service; ten were sent to the Mediterranean as garrison, thus freeing the Regular troops for service in the Crimea. In all, the Militia sent to the War in South Africa 1,691 officers and 43,875 men."
  I think that passage absolutely establishes the fact that the Militia always have gone to war. We have always needed the Militia to go to the front in a big war.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: And you have always had them.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes, and I hope we shall continue to have them. I believe they will always be willing and anxious to go to war, but they can only go to war by individual volunteering, and that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. In the first place, when you ask men on parade to volunteer in accordance with the formalities which you have to follow on such an occasion, there is always an unpleasant suspicion of pressure being brought on the men. I do not say whether it is justified or not, but that suspicion is always present, and I notice that in the evidence which he gave before the recent Royal Commission my noble friend Lord Raglan used the word "immoral" in this connection. There is also the fact that in trusting to this volunteering you are giving yourselves over to great uncertainty. The War Office has to prepare mobilisation schemes and the like, but in preparing those schemes they cannot look with certainty to the service of any single Militia unit or even man, and I am sure your Lordships will recognise that that is a great inconvenience in preparing for war. If the present position, therefore,

  1655
  is illogical, immoral, and inconvenient, I confess that I myself can see very little reason for maintaining it.
  I believe the change proposed would be acceptable to the Militia. I have been very carefully through the evidence that was given on this subject before the Royal Commission, and I find that the question of the merits of such a proposal as this was put to eighteen witnesses, of whom four were opposed to the suggestion and fourteen in favour of it. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the evidence of the four who were not in favour of the proposal, but I cannot help feeling that the majority were in every way qualified to be consulted upon such a subject. The majority included such distinguished soldiers as the noble Viscount Lord Wolseley, who said that it would be a very desirable thing; and the noble Field Marshal Earl Roberts, who said that it would be very valuable, and added—
  "At present we are in the dark as to whether we can get them or not get them."
  These fourteen witnesses included persons who, being Militia officers themselves, were thoroughly competent to speak. I notice the names of Lord Selborne, Lord Hardinge, Lord Raglan, and Lord Castletown, who have all by the part they have taken in debates in this House proved their light to speak with authority on this matter. Colonel Holden, who spoke on behalf of the Militia Rifle Association, was also included in the fourteen. As I have said, the right of all these gentlemen to speak on the subject is absolutely unquestioned, and I claim that their testimony must be allowed considerable authority with your Lordships in coming to a decision on this matter.
  There is only one other important point in connection with this Bill to which I would like to allude. One of the greatest difficulties with which the Militia has to contend at the present moment is the difficulty of getting officers, and I am sanguine enough to believe that if your Lordships assent to this proposal that difficulty will be very greatly diminished. You will be offering a far more attractive career to a Militia officer than you have ever offered him before. You have asked him hitherto to do his preliminary drill,
  1656
  and spend a certain number of weeks every year in training his battalion, but the minute war comes, and war has hitherto in our experience invariably come outside this kingdom, you say—"Oh, no, your regiment is not earmarked to go abroad in time of war; you have to stay at home and defend this kingdom." And unless he is lucky enough to go out to the war for some special purpose he spends his time marching up and down Aldershot or Salisbury Plain, and not exactly in pursuits which one would think would convey ideal happiness to an English country gentleman. But under this Bill he will know that while he stays at home in time of peace he belongs to a force which is earmarked to go on service abroad in time of war. I believe that will be a much more acceptable position to him, and I shall be very disappointed if we do not have greater facility in getting officers after Parliament passes this Bill, as I sincerely hope it will.
  Your Lordships will have noticed that there are certain very necessary safeguards in the Bill. We can only deal with the Militia under the Bill when they are embodied, and embodiment only takes place by Royal Proclamation in times of national emergency. No Militiaman raised by a compulsory process would be affected by this Bill. Therefore, we do not attack the noble Earl's pet lamb, the ballot, and the interests of present members are amply safeguarded. The Bill does not apply to the Imperial Yeomanry, because it is quite obvious that, while we require to retain some soldiers in this country, a proportion of the soldiers so retained must be mounted men. There are no mounted men among the Volunteers, and therefore we have to retain the Yeomanry for service in this country if they are required. The Yeomanry are a very satisfactory force, and I think your Lordships will see the wisdom of our not having included them under this Bill. Two Amendments have been given notice, of this afternoon. There is, first, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, who meets us with a direct negative, and I do not flatter myself that anything I can say can overcome his Toryism in this matter; but I sincerely hope that the majority

  1657
  of your Lordships will not follow his lead. The noble Marquess opposite, the Marquess of Ripon, has also put an Amendment down asking for further information on a great many subjects before the Bill is proceeded with. That Motion has been on the Paper for a long time. The Estimates have been presented to Parliament since it was put down, and there has been a great deal of oratory in another place on the subject. I do not know whether the noble Marquess is satisfied by what he has heard and road on the subject or not, but at any rate I am glad he does not attack the principle of the Bill in his Amendment. I therefore sincerely hope I shall have his support as well as that of the majority of your Lordships if it is necessary to divide upon this Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  *THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have listened with much interest and considerable curiosity to see on what grounds my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill would justify the revolution—for it is nothing short of that—in Militia service, which is proposed by His Majesty's Government. His arguments, however, did not touch the three points I propose to raise, and I can assure your Lordships I shall confine myself as much as possible to those three points and shall not enter into any general disquisition upon the admirable services that the Militia have always rendered in time of war in all parts of the world. Nor do I propose to cite authorities, extending over more than a century, who have favoured the Militia as it is. What you are now asked to do is to establish the Militia on a totally different footing. The points I wish to raise are these: that this is a revolution, that it is breaking up the foundation upon which our military system rests. There is not a man in this House, who knows anything of the subject, who will deny that it is upon the Militia that our existing military system is founded. If this Bill passes it will break up that foundation entirely.
  It is desirable, when considering a question of its total change, to know
  1658
  exactly what the Militia is, and what the extent of the change will be. I turn to the latest edition of the Encyclopædia, and under the head of "Militia" I read as follows—
  "The Militia of the United Kingdom consists of a number of officers and men maintained for the purpose of augmenting the military strength of the country in case of imminent danger or great emergency. For such a contingency the whole or any part of the Militia is liable, by proclamation of the Sovereign, to be embodied; that is to say, to be placed on active service—"
  I ask your Lordships to mark the words which follow—
  "within the confines of the United Kingdom. The officers and men when called out are liable for duty with the Regulars, and in all respects as Regular soldiers, within the United Kingdom."
  If you want to know what this Bill does, I will tell you. It strikes out "within" and substitutes "without." This force which is raised for military service within the United Kingdom is capable of volunteering to serve outside the United Kingdom, but if this Bill passes it will be compelled to do so. I cannot conceive any greater change than that an old constitutional force, which has existed all this time for service within this country, and which, when embodied, might volunteer for foreign service, should be, at the will of the Government of the day, ordered to go across the seas to any part of the world. That is a great constitutional change which, I think, is highly objectionable.
  Secondly, the Bill will put an end to the Militia ballot. The ballot is the foundation of the Militia; the Militia is supposed to be raised by ballot; but if this Bill passes there is an end of ballot for the Militia. If you happened to be in such a position that you had to raise Militiamen by ballot, is there anyone in your Lordships' House who will dare to stand up and say that you could compulsorily, under a ballot, send men to China, Peru, or Timbuctoo? You could not. So practically that power which my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said was necessary for emergencies, and which he said, speaking on the subject some three years ago, was a power with which he would not readily part, is gone. I venture to think that if this Bill passes you will

  1659
  have done away with the power of compulsion for home service, and in doing that you do away with the old constitutional right of the Crown to call upon its subjects compulsorily for service in home defence.
  My third point is the one on which my noble friend the Under-Secretary laid great stress—the uncertainty that at present prevails as to whether you have these Militiamen under hand or not. The blue-water question has never been debated in this House, though I hope to raise the question when my noble friend Lord Wolseley comes home. I object to the test of my noble friend the Under-Secretary. His test was one which will very soon disappear. He said the country now has the Volunteers, and therefore requires the Militia less for home defence, but you are doing your best to get rid of the Volunteers. I wish we had got rid of them. The great mistake of my life was being a Volunteer. And why? Because in consequence of the existence of the Volunteers those in authority have never done their duty by the State in enforcing the Militia ballot. Afraid of the voter—and the only principle that I can see in legislation now-a-days is to catch votes—they have not dared to enforce the ballot to fill the Militia, and the result is that the Militia is now, and always has been, something like 30,000 below its establishment; and I am inclined to think that when you pass this Bill, which enables the Government to send them to any part of the world, that diminution is likely to increase. My point is that the noble Earl's argument does not hold water. It does not hold water because you have not tried all the means available under the existing law to obtain a body of Militia at all times ready to go anywhere when wanted. You can do this under the existing law without upsetting the very foundation upon which your whole military system rests. I repeat that you can do this now under the existing Act.
  Some thirty-five years ago I wrote a number of letters on the subject and was in communication with that most excellent Militiaman, Lord Abingdon, who was then Lord Norreys, and the question arose about the Militia Reserve. Lord Abingdon counselled the Government
  1660
  to make a list of regiments, whole units, who were ready to go anywhere, and to take note of those that so volunteered for duty. The feeling thirty-five years ago which Militiamen had, as expressed by Lord Norreys, was that the whole force would voluntarily ask to be put on that list in practically the position that this Bill tries to put them. That is the answer to my noble friend as regards the difficulty of getting hold of them. I say, at any rate, try it; try this plan. You can raise no possible objection to it. Try it before you dig up the foundations of our whole military system, as you are doing needlessly, as I hold, by this Bill. The Resolution standing in my name on the Paper is to move to resolve—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is contrary to sound policy to tamper with the Militia force and alter, as is intended, its conditions and terms of service."
  I have been asked, instead of moving that Resolution as it stands, to move the rejection of this Bill. I do not care who votes with me. I simply enter my protest against this kind of legislation. But before I sit down I would say this to your Lordships, that the question at issue, putting on one side the opinion of the blue-water school, is one vital to this nation. I ask your Lordships to look upon it as not only vital to the nation, but as a question outside Party, and I hope that the patriotic feeling and independent spirit of noble Lords will induce them to vote with me against this Bill, which, as I have said, affects the time-honoured constitution and service of that valuable force, the Militia.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and add at the end of the Motion the words 'this day six months.' "—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  *THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, the Bill now before the House, if carried, goes a long way towards converting the Militia into the second line of the Army, a military policy which I have already advocated in your Lordships' House. I find that most Militia officers with whom I have discussed foreign-service enlistment are in favour of enlisting for foreign service and in the manner proposed by the Bill. I do not fear any falling off in the number

  1661
  of recruits owing to enlistment for foreign service, provided that the same kit, clothing, and equipment are given to the Militia recruit now to be enlisted for foreign service as to the Line recruit. I apprehend some loss to the force on the score of men not being willing to re-engage for foreign service. A re-engaged man is one who, after completing his first term of six years service, renews his engagement at once for a further period of six years. A man would be about twenty-five years old when he has to decide if he will re-engage for a further period of six years, which would take him to the other side of thirty, a period of life when a man may have many perfectly legitimate reasons for not incurring the liability for foreign service. The re-engaged man of twenty-five to thirty years old is a most valuable one in the force and quite at the best moment of his life for military service. If, as I anticipate, men do not re-engage freely for foreign service I suggest offering a bounty for re-engagement.
  I cannot agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that it is a mistake to alter the conditions of service in the Militia. The essential feature of the old Militia system was that it created an insular garrison, locally raised by the compulsion of the ballot, and, to a great extent, maintained by local as distinguished from Imperial taxation. But Mr. Pitt's policy (1798–1805) used the Militia as the recruiting ground for the Regular Army. It is interesting to note that at that time there were two systems of enlistment running in the Militia, the ballot for home defence and a supplementary Militia, raised by voluntary methods, from which men were encouraged to join the Regular Army and serve abroad. This supplementary Militia lasted for a very brief time. During the short interval of peace in 1802 the Militia Acts were consolidated into one general Militia Act of 1802. The ballot was then in operation, and men were not allowed to enlist from the Militia into the Regular Army, which was a return to the old principle of reserving the Milit a for home defence. Under the ballot substitutes were allowed, with the result that the Militia became entirely composed of such substitutes, 23,000 men being substitutes out of 26,000. The system
  1662
  of substitutes, moreover, encouraged fraudulent enlistment, because it was a temptation to men to desert and become substitutes in as many different regiments as possible. It also discouraged enlistment for the Regular Army, since it paid men better to become substitutes for the Militia than recruits for the Regular Army.
  For these reasons the Militia ballot was suspended, but only to be revived in 1807. The Government urgently needed 28,000 men for service abroad. Ordinary methods of recruiting failed. There was a choice between raising men by the ballot for the Regular Army direct or through the Militia. Lord Castlereagh preferred the latter course on the ground that it was the cheapest method, and that it provided the best class of recruit. Anyhow, the measure was completely successful; 27,000 men within twelve months joined the Regular Army after having been balloted into the Militia, and their places in the Militia were filled by 45,000 additional men. But at this moment, in addition to the ballot, the system of fines prevailed. Each parish had to furnish its quota of men for the Militia, and any parish making default was fined £60 for each man deficient. These conditions existed for only two years (1807–1809). Afterwards and throughout the rest of the war, men were to be raised for the Militia in the first instance by beat of drum, as volunteers, and secondly, if that failed, by ballot. But to what extent the ballot was, re-sorted to between 1807 and 1815 cannot be ascertained. Anyhow, after 1815 the ballot was never put into operation, and at no time during the history of the Militia was a balloted man sent abroad, except as a volunteer. In 1813 there was a new condition of service in the Militia. By an Act of George III. the Militia was allowed to serve abroad as Militia, and under their own officers.
  There were many changes in the Militia between 1852 and 1860, during the period of the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. The Militia was then made liable to serve anywhere in the United Kingdom, and in 1855 an Act, similar to the Act of George III. was passed encouraging Militia regiments up to three-fourths of their strength to volunteer for foreign service at specified places as Militia, and they did so serve. In our

  1663
  own day we have had the form of enlistment known as the Militia Reserve. The Militia Reserve was composed of men serving in the Militia, who, in consideration of an extra bounty of £1 a year, agreed to belong to the Reserve of the Regular Army for the purposes of foreign and active service. The original intention was that this Militia Reserve should be a force supplementary to the Militia, in the same sense as the supplementary Militia in the time of Mr. Pitt. But the real result was that the better men in each Militia battalion belonged to the Regular Army on mobilisation. The principle of this form of enlistment was unsound, in that it counted one man in two places, and trusted that he would not be required in two different places at the same time. This form of enlistment was abolished at the end of the South African War.
  As regards altering the constitutional character of the Militia, that was very completely done in 1852, when the administration of the force was concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State for War, with the result that recruiting for the Militia, which used formerly to be the duty of every class in the locality, from the Lord-Lieutenant downwards, is now a Departmental matter in which no one is concerned. I may add that in my experience I have never come across any military authority or any other authority who took the smallest interest in whether a Militia battalion was up to its establishment or very much the reverse. It must be remembered that until recent years the cost of the Militia was defrayed from local taxation, and the man who bore the local burden had a right to demand the local defence. But now that the burden is transferred to Imperial taxation, I submit that the Militia should be available for Imperial defence.
  The instances which I have quoted show that at every crisis in the military history of this country the conditions of service in the Militia have been altered to suit the military requirements of the day, and the way in which in the past the Militia has never failed to respond to those alterations shows the great value of the force. The problems of Imperial defence have entirely changed in the
  1664
  course of the last few years. His Majesty's Government propose to use the Militia for the purposes of the defence of the Empire all the world over. That is a military policy in which I cordially concur, provided always that the Militia is properly equipped for foreign service. It is not so now. But in the belief that if this Bill becomes law the Militia will be equipped for the service for which it is destined, I support the Bill.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON,*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, who had given notice to move to resolve—
  "That this House does not deem it advisable to proceed with the consideration of this Bill until it has before it a full statement of the whole of the proposals of His Majesty's Government for the reorganisation of the Army."
  said: My Lords, I gave notice some time ago of an Amendment to the Second Reading of this Bill, founded upon my belief that it was not advisable to deal with the reorganisation of our military system piecemeal, and that we ought to have, before we undertake that great and most important duty, a full explanation of the intentions of His Majesty's Government. But I find that the forms of the House will not allow me to move that Amendment if, as is, I suppose, probable, looking at the benches opposite, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Wemyss is rejected. If that Amendment is rejected no other Amendment can be moved, and therefore I must ask your Lordships' indulgence if I make the observations which I desire to offer in respect to this Bill at this stage rather than at a later one.
  I was not surprised that the noble Earl opposite minimised the effect of this measure as much as he could. I do not in the smallest degree blame the noble Earl. Nothing would be more natural in his position. But he tried to make out that the change proposed was, in fact, extremely small. Among other things, he told us, with perfect truth, that there had been many changes made in regard to the Militia in one form or another, and he described them as changes of principle. I cannot agree with the noble Earl in that. They were changes mostly of administration. The Militia rests upon the principle which has been explained so forcibly to your

  1665
  Lordships by my noble friend Lord Wemyss—the principle that it is intended primarily for home defence. That is the principle of the Militia, and it has not been in the least degree impaired by any of the changes to which the noble Earl alluded. The noble Duke who has just sat down seemed to think that that change was made when the Militia was transferred from the superintendence of the Home Secretary to the Secretary of State for War. I cannot take that view. I remember those days very well, and I can assure the noble Duke that there was no idea at that time of making any constitutional change in regard to the Militia, but military questions of every kind were then being gradually and properly consolidated under the Secretary of State for War.
  THE EARL or WEMYSS: Volunteers also.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The Volunteers also. At any rate, the Militia was placed under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for War, but no alteration was made in the constitutional position of the Militia. My noble friend now sitting at the Table and myself carry back our recollections so far in regard to this question, that some of your Lordships may think that our views on this, subject are old-fashioned. But I turn to the Report, of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, and what do I find stated there? That Commission thus describes the Militia—
  "The Militia exists chiefly, and the Volunteers solely, for the purpose of resisting a possible invasion of the United Kingdom."
  That is to say, according to the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, the primary duty of the Militia is to be employed for home defence. Now, what this Bill proposes is entirely to change that primary condition. It proposes that instead of being primarily meant for home defence the Militia should become, as it was described in the speech made by the noble Earl opposite last February, a portion of the Reserve Army, and similar language has, I understand, been used elsewhere by the Secretary of State for War. Therefore, hereafter, if this Bill passes, you will remove the Militia from its present position as a valuable
  1666
  portion of our forces for home defence and join it entirely to the Regular Army, and whenever there is a strain of any kind render it liable for foreign service. That seems to me to be a question of extreme importance, and one upon which I am not prepared to give my final opinion until I know what are the other arrangements which His Majesty's Government are going to make for home defence.
  This proposal is only the first of several schemes in respect to the Militia which have passed at least through the mind of the Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for War has contemplated—I do not know whether or not he contemplates it now, because his utterances within the last few days have seemed to me to be almost contradictory—taking from the Militia a large number of battalions and adding them to what he calls his territorial Army. He has contemplated putting an end to a considerable number of Militia regiments and taking other steps in respect to what may remain. Now, my Lords, before we take this first step in this direction we have a right to know whether His Majesty's Government do or do not intend to adopt the rest of the proposals of the Secretary of State for War with regard to the Militia. I am not by any means sure that His Majesty's Government have any such intention, for it is impossible to make out from a perusal of the remarks of the Secretary of State whether he is speaking for himself only. There is so much of the personal pronoun in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman that it is extremely difficult to find out whether he speaks for himself or for His Majesty's Government. I hope before this debate is brought to a close we may have some clear and distinct statement from noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite as to how far they are prepared to endorse and adopt this system.
  If you take the Militia from its present position and turn it into a Reserve for the Regular Army, I think yon are bound to tell us what you are going to do to provide for the defence of this country at home. I know very well that opinion has greatly changed in the last fifty years in respect to the question of home defence. I am myself a humble

  1667
  disciple of the blue-water school, but I confess I am a little startled by some of the lengths to which persons are inclined to go now in respect to the immunity of this country from danger by raids. We have been told within the last few days that the naval view in respect to that question is that the crew of a dinghy could not land in this country in the face of the Navy. I have the greatest possible confidence in His Majesty's Navy. I have the greatest possible belief that they may may be relied upon to protect us from serious invasion; but I confess I cannot think that it would be safe for us to adopt the view that they can always prevent a boat's crew from landing in this country and that there is no danger to be provided against in the nature of raids of a grave and serious character. The author of the sentence I have quoted, strange as it may seem, is Mr. Arnold-Forster. He is the author of the ''dinghy theory." I cannot swallow that theory. I may be a heretic among those who believe in the blue-water policy, but I cannot follow that. I believe much more in what I find stated in the Report of the Norfolk Commission. In that Report there is a very singular document, a document which had a very curious history. It was sent to the Commission from the office of the Director-General of Mobilisation and Intelligence as being forwarded with the authority of the Secretary of State. I know perfectly well that shortly afterwards the Commission were informed that the Defence Committee repudiated it and that it was not authoritative; but, as it contains the opinion of so important a person as the Director-General of Mobilisation and Intelligence, the document is entitled to considerable weight. He said—
  "It is neld by some that the Government can guarantee complete protection of the United Kingdom against danger of invasion by any larger force than from 5,000 to 10,000 men."
  That, I think, is the basis upon which you ought to frame your arrangements. My noble friend who spoke just now drew attention to the question of raids. I will not make any allusion to such a terrible catastrophe as a raid which might threaten our greatest seaports. Liverpool or Glasgow. But I ask your Lordships what would be the effect of an
  1668
  attack of 5,000 or 10,000 men on Yarmouth, Hull, Brighton, or Scarborough. You know what the effect would be; you know that it would create a panic in the land, and that a force so landed, if not immediately met, would do considerable damage. Therefore I say we ought not to take the first step in a direction which may land us in the adoption of a theory that no such raids are possible without having before us the fullest and clearest statement on the authority of the Government of their general proposals for home defence.
  Now, what are the proposals which have been adumbrated by Mr. Arnold-Forster? The first is the raising of a large number of battalions belonging to the Regular Army on a two-years service. Part of those were intended to be taken from the Militia, but I should very much like to know what has become of those two-year battalions. I, myself, doubt very much whether they still exist except in the brain of the Secretary of State for War, and I seek for information from noble Lords as to what is their state. I am, I confess, one of those who think that recent experience has shown very plainly that you cannot run simultaneously in the Regular Army two different systems of enlistment, two different terms upon which men are to serve. What happened just recently in that unfortunate experiment of Mr. Brodrick's, which turned out to be such a total and almost disastrous failure? He thought he could enlist men for three years and get them to extend their service in the course of that period for a further term of nine years, but they would not do it. What was the consequence? You had to suspend short-service enlistment. Short-service enlistment is now suspended. From what I see in the newspapers, it is proposed that it shall be suspended for another seven or eight months at all events, and it is by no means certain that when that time comes it will be possible to revert to it. But what seems to me to be proved by this example is this, that if you have two different terms of enlistment men will love the one and hate the other. They will go to whichever they like best, and as they apparently do like short service much better than long service they will go to the short service, and you will be

  1669
  brought from time to time to the same position in respect to providing drafts for India and the Colonies in which you have found yourselves lately, and you will be obliged to again suspend your short-service enlistment, check the growth of your Reserve, and upset the new arrangement you are going to make.
  I should be very glad to know whether it is intended to adopt this two-years system, and, if so, when it is going to be brought into operation. The noble Earl will probably say to me, "We are getting plenty of men now for the nine-years service." Yes, but during the last few months there has been, unfortunately, in this country a great deal of want of employment, and when you tell men that you will not let them come in on the short-service terms they, being forced to seek employment in the Army, take the longer service terms. But we hope and trust that that want of employment will pass away, and when the necessity of men entering the Army is less than it is now I venture to think you will find the dislike of long service more effective than it is at the present time. I confess, speaking for myself, that I am one of those who are very much inclined to think that you will have to return to a single system of enlistment, to single terms of enlistment for a shorter period than nine years. That, however, is an opinion, which I venture to express as being held by myself. You can rest assured that if I am right in my supposition of the difficulty of running two separate systems side by side you will have to come back to that single system of enlistment. If we are not to have the two-years service regiments, or if when we do get them we have again to suspend enlistment in them in order to force men into the nine-years service regiments, what becomes of the Reserve?
  No man can have a higher opinion of the services of the Volunteers than I have. In the days when they were first started, and when my noble friend at the Table was most active, energetic, and vigorous in helping to raise that force, I was Under-Secretary of State for War and therefore I know a little about it. I venture to think that it is a very delicate thing to touch the terms upon which Volunteers are to serve. The upward
  1670
  limit of the demand in the way of training that can be made upon the Volunteers is very strictly confined. If you try to ask too much the force will gradually die out. It has always been thought a great advantage that the Volunteer force should be maintained at a very high figure. I think so still, but at the same time I do think that, if they are to be the sole force for home defence in this country, they will require the strengthening and the backing of a portion at least of the Regular Army, and that unless you can afford that to them you may find yourselvse in no inconsiderable difficulty if any raids of the description referred to should take place.
  It seems to be very unfashionable at the present moment to think about the defence of these little islands. The thoughts of men now go to other and more distant parts of the world, but, I confess, I think our primary duty is to maintain the security of these islands upon the basis—and I quite admit the basis—that you must look to the Navy to prevent a serious invasion. But, my Lords, if you weaken the forces which you maintain, at home you do run a risk of raids far exceeding the celebrated dinghy, and which would not merely injure the district which suffered from them, but would spread panic and dismay throughout the country.
  There is one other point on which I should like to say a word. It seems to me that very little effort has been made to consider not merely what for purely military purposes you might most desire, but what upon a system of voluntary enlistment you are likely to get. I do not think that enough attention has been paid to the feelings of the classes who go into our military forces. Mr. Brodrick made a disastrous mistake. He tried to get men who wanted short service to take long service, and they would not. I am by no means convinced that the change which it is proposed to make now in regard to the Militia may not very seriously interfere with your recruiting for that force. I do not express a positive opinion on the subject; I am not competent to do so; but it does appear to me that there is a very great chance that the men on the

  1671
  one hand, and employers on the other, will not be inclined to forward recruiting for the Militia if there is an absolute obligation for them to go abroad.
  We are told that very objectionable things take place occasionally in the present system of volunteering. I believe that is so. I have heard some very curious stories indeed on the subject, but I do not think that in order to remedy that it is necessary to revolutionise the Militia. I believe that if the military authorities take that matter in hand and see that the men are allowed their individual free choice, the thing can be done as an administrative matter without an Act of Parliament at all. I therefore venture to say that I do not think that this House or the other House of Parliament is in the position in which it ought to be to decide upon a question involving as much as this Bill involves. We have not the information. It is not in the Memorandum to which we can freely refer. It is not, I think, to be gathered from the statements made in another place, and, therefore, unless His Majesty's Government can give us a much fuller statement of the whole of their plan, unless they can tell us more than we know now, not merely of what are the aspirations of Mr. Arnold-Forster, but what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government, I for one that find myself unable to give support to the Bill now before us. This is not a matter for piecemeal legislation. It is not a matter with which you can trifle. It is a matter of a very serious nature indeed. It is a matter very urgently requiring settlement. At present there is much uncertainty, doubt, and confusion in the minds both of the Militia and the Volunteers. The continuance of that doubt will destroy the Militia and the Volunteers, and it is therefore, I venture to say, essentially necessary that we should have the full confidence el His Majesty's Government, that they should tell us what they do mean, and the whole measure of Army reorganisation, before they ask us to take a partial and a limited step.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble
  1672
  Marquess has challenged us so directly upon one or two points that I am compelled to intervene earlier in this debate than I had intended. I do not think that my noble friend's statement was open to the imputation of having minimised the importance of the measure before the House. Nor indeed, had he desired it, would it have been possible for him to do so, because there is no use disguising the fact that the measure is one of first-rate importance, altering as it does the primary conditions of the Militia service. We have made this great change for a reason which can be stated in a few words. We have done it because we believe that we do want a very large Army for service outside the limits of this country, and that we do not want to maintain within the country another very large Army available only to serve within the narrow confines of these islands.
  The noble Marquess greatly misunderstood the so-called blue-water theory as unfolded by my right hon. colleague the Secretary of State for War. What my right hon. colleague said was that His Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that the invasion in force of these islands was highly improbable or impracticable, and then he went on as an illustration to say that he believed the extreme naval view to be that even a dinghy could not safely effect a landing on these shores. But that is not by any means the account of my right hon. friend's statement which the noble Marquess gave to the House. My right hon. friend also explained that what he did think a danger to be provided for was the danger of a foreign raid of, say, 5,000 or 6,000 men. The noble Marquess expatiated with great eloquence upon the risk of so denuding the country of troops, particularly of Regular troops, that a raid of this kind might take place at the outset of war and create great panic and demoralisation in the country. But will the noble Marquess consider for a moment what our position at the outset of a war would probably be? We should have at home twenty-six or twenty-seven long-service Line battalions. We should also have the short-service battalions, because obviously no part of that large body of troops, could be sent out of the

  1673
  country at the very outset of war or until we had obtained control of the seas. Added to this would be the Militia and Volunteers. It seems to me, therefore, very far-fetched to suggest that we should be in any danger with that great body of troops at our disposal from a raid of 5,000 or 6,000 men.
  But I readily admit that the so-called blue-water school is of comparatively recent origin. The theory under which I was brought up was certainly not the blue-water theory. I was educated to believe that a force of three Army Corps should be available for service outside the country, and that thre eother Army Corps should be evolved and organised out of the great mass of troops that remained for the defence of England and particularly of London, from an invasion in force. I have seen elaborate schemes in which positions were allotted to all the different units in order that such an invasion of this country might be held in check. Then, of course, it follows that it was our duty to organise, arm, and equip the whole of our Auxiliary Forces in order that they might be prepared for a great military operation of that kind. But there has been with regard to this question a great awakening of late—an awakening which has had its origin in two different sets of circumstances. It has resulted, in the first place, from the much more attentive study which these questions have received since the Defence Committee has been in working operation. Up to that time the great Departments of defence, the War Office and the Admiralty, were in the habit of corresponding, indeed, with one another; but I do not think I misrepresent them when I say that the views held in those two Departments were not always so collated as to enable us to arrive at a true appreciation of the facts. The thorough investigation which those great strategic problems have received at the hands of the Defence Committee has been one cause which has led to this fundamental change in our conceptions.
  The other cause, also a most important one, is to be found in the financial exigencies of the case. We have all, I think, come to see that the constant growth of our naval and military expenditure
  1674
  has become a serious menace to the financial stability of this country, and we have had to consider in what direction it was possible to arrest the progress of that colossal expenditure. I believe your Lordships will all agree that the pruning knife cannot be applied to our naval expenditure. Those of us who had the good fortune to listen the other day to Lord Selborne's eloquent speech delivered from this bench will realise that this is not a time when we could contemplate any diminution in the naval preparations which it is our duty to make. Nor is it conceivable that at this moment we should desire to diminish the number of men who would be available, if this country were at war, for active operations in India or in the Colonies or other parts of the world. Therefore, it seems to me to follow that, if there is to be retrenchment at any point, if there is to be an arrestation of the progress of expenditure, that arrestation must take place in connection with that part of the Army which is useful for home defence only. We have, then, to consider from that point of view what is the proper place of the Militia; and I am glad to believe that in the opinion of most of us the proper function of the Militia is that it should form a part of that Army which in time of peace remains at home, but which in times of national emergency shall be available for use in the field beyond the limits of these islands.
  I have no doubt that if my right hon. colleague had had a clean slate to work upon he would have been justified in doing what I believe in his original proposal he desired to recommend to Parliament, and that he would have preferred that the Militia should be merged in that short-service Army of which we have spoken in these debates. But sentiment counts for a great deal in these questions, and it became obvious that a measure of that kind would have done great violence to the sentiment of a force which we greatly honour and which commands the esteem of the country. Therefore we propose that the Militia should retain its identity, and that it should not be merged in the short-service Army, but that, on the other hand, it should be so trained, so equipped, and so officered that it should be fit when occasion arises to

  1675
  take its place alongside the best troops of the Line for the purpose of foreign service.
  The noble Marquess expressed his objection to accepting these proposals with regard to the Militia until we had disclosed more fully the whole of our scheme of Army reform. We have made no mystery of the broad outlines of that scheme. They were explained last year by the Secretary of State; they have been set forth again in the Memorandum on the Army Estimates, and they have been more fully gone into in the House of Commons within the last two or three days. I thought it was well understood that our proposals were based upon the creation of a long-service Army recruited for a term of nine years with the colours and three with the Reserve, liable at all times for service abroad, and, on the other hand, a short-service Army with a period of two years with the colours and six years with the Reserve, available for service abroad only in time of emergency. That is the broad basis of the new scheme. But the noble Marquess says, "Where are these short-service battalions? They do not exist. When are "they going to exist? "That is a legitimate question. The noble Marquess, however, I think, answered it himself in the course of his speech, because he dwelt on the failure of Mr. Brodrick's scheme of three-years enlistment to provide a sufficient number of men for the Indian drafts. That is quite true. We found we could not reckon on a sufficient number of men for the drafts for the battalions abroad; and consequently, in order to obtain those men, we had to shut the door to short-service recruiting and to accept for a time, but a time only, nothing but men recruited for long service. It has, however, been stated distinctly by my right hon. colleague that when a sufficient number of long-service men have been recruited—and I may say that long-service recruiting has proceeded in a most satisfactory manner, I am told that we have got 10,600 men—we shall certainly resort to short-service recruiting and to short-service battalions of the kind described by my right hon. colleague. There is to my mind one reason why it is obvious that we must resort to short-
  1676
  service recruiting, because it is only by means of such recruiting that you are able to build up what I shall always maintain is the thing which is of all others needful for our Army—a great and numerous Reserve.
  I must say one word with regard to two of the criticisms made upon the Bill by the Earl of Wemyss. I understood him to suggest that it would be possible to obtain all we require by inviting Militia battalions to volunteer beforehand for service abroad, that is, by taking men as now for service at home, but afterwards allowing the battalions to volunteer for liability to serve abroad. I am bound to say that to my mind all these arrangements under which men are taken into the Army upon one set of terms, and then invited, whether as individuals or collectively, to accept a wholly different liability, are fundamentally bad and wrong. I am within the recollection of the House when I say that during the South African War, much as we rejoiced at the magnificent way in which the Militia came forward to help us in that great emergency, most of us had an uneasy feeling that the procedure by which Militia battalions were induced to volunteer was not one which we could regard altogether with satisfaction or contentment. The only other observation I will make in reply to my noble friend Lord Wemyss is this. He dwelt with sorrow upon the effect which this measure will have in depriving the country of a last chance of having recourse to the Militia ballot. My Lords, that point has been carefully considered by our legal advisers, and we are assured that, even if this Bill is passed, it would be possible, supposing that we desired it, to form a territorial Militia by means of the application of the ballot. Whether, considering the feeling with regard to home service, and the dislike that there now is to collecting large numbers of men with a liability limited to service in this country, that is ever likely to come I do not take upon myself to say.
  My Lords, I have only to add that we associate ourselves with my right hon. colleague in the proposals which he has made to Parliament. They seem to us to be the best of which the circumstances

  1677
  admit; and they certainly fulfil, to my mind, the conditions which are indispensable and which I would describe as follows—that we should avoid the use of compulsion; that we should maintain a strong Regular Army for service abroad; that we should endeavour to build up a large Reserve; and that we should, if we cannot diminish our expenditure, at any rate avoid an increase in the Army Estimates.
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as I did to the speech of the noble Earl who introduced this Bill, and I think the House will be in agreement with me when I say that we do not know even now what is the view of His Majesty's Government upon the scheme which has been defined by the Secretary of State for War. There are two or three Questions one would be inclined to ask. One is, is the long-service system to be permanent or only temporary? Again, is the infantry of the Line to continue to be divided into two separate Armies with different terms of enlistment and pay? I have put a notice on the Paper with a view to obtaining some information upon the effect of Mr. Arnold-Forster's proposal, but it seems to me that the whole scheme of the right hon. Gentleman depends upon the success of the long-service system. I have asked for a Return of the ages of the men who have been enlisted under the long-service system. I believe I am to have that Return from the War Office. I have asked for it for this reason. It is clearly obvious that if we are obtaining the same class of men now under the long-service enlistment as we obtained under the Cardwell system, then the effect of reducing the period of Reserve service from five years to three years will be to diminish by many thousands the Army Reserve without giving the country any counterbalancing advantages whatever. That is perfectly clear on the face of it.
  The most extraordinary point about the whole of Mr. Arnold-Forster's ideas is that he takes credit that his scheme will increase the Reserve of the Army. If there is one thing it will not do that is the thing. Take, for instance, your nine-
  1678
  years service men. I suppose they will have to serve six or seven years in a hot climate like India; they will come back to this country utterly unfit to compete in the labour market. They will be wrecked in health, and more fitted really for a pension than for fighting. I understand that the Militia are not to be absorbed. Therefore, the two-years service men will be the men drafted into the Reserve. These men will have had two years service. In what way wall they compare with men who have had from six to eight years service under the Cardwell system? I appeal to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who made a speech last year in this House in which he gave his opinion upon the effect of the Cardwell system on the Reserve of the Army, and it was a convincing statement. I think it is so strong that, with the leave of the House, I will quote an extract from it. The noble Marquess said—
  "I shall continue to believe that the arrangement under which the home battalions acted as what I may call feeders to the foreign battalions, and in their turn when fortified by the addition of Reservists became fighting units, was a very good system, and certainly at the outbreak of the South African War it enabled us to put in the field a larger and more efficient force thin ever before left these shores."
  My noble friend went on to say he had reason to admit that another system was necessary because our foreign requirements had grown so much heavier; we had to keep such a large Army in India and the other garrisons that we could not get a sufficient number of men in the linked battalions at home to feed them. I am afraid my noble friend cannot have examined the scheme of Mr. Arnold-Forster, because, from what I gather from his scheme as defined last year, he will maintain ninety-six battalions at home as against eighty-eight abroad, or more than we would have to maintain under the Cardwell system if we had as many battalions at home as abroad. I have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult indeed to extract from the Government their policy upon this Army scheme, and incidentally, I might say, upon other matters. We have at this moment no idea what the scheme really is in its entirety, and I think it is hardly courteous to the House of Lords that we should be asked to deal with a Bill which is really

  1679
  part of a larger scheme without full knowledge of that scheme. Neither the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs nor the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has informed the House what are the views of His Majesty's Government on that scheme as a whole.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Certainly we have.
  *VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: I did not gather so. Mr. Arnold-Forster in the House of Commons certainly did not inform us. I read his speech through very carefully, but failed to find out what part of his scheme was assented to by His Majesty's Government. We have had schemes of reform before. We had a scheme associated with the name of Mr. Brodrick. I remember some few years ago venturing to say in this House that Mr. Brodrick might call his Army Corps by whatever name he liked, but he would never obtain them, and that prophecy, at any rate, seems to have come true, The Army now has another master, and Mr. Arnold-Forster, who was the severest critic of the Army in the House of Commons, has become a constructor, and we have a right to ask what form of building Mr. Arnold-Forster is constructing or has constructed. There is one thing clear, however, and it is that Mr. Arnold-Forster proposes to abolish the Cardwell system and to put something else in its place. Therefore, it seems to me desirable that we should for a few moments examine the Cardwell system and compare it with Mr. Arnold-Forster's proposals.
  But there is the preliminary question as to what our military responsibilities are. They have, of course, been immensely increased by recent policy and events, and I suppose that a great portion of the £12,000,000 addition to the Army Estimates may be attributed to the trouble in South Africa and the necessity of maintaining a garrison there. But the military responsibilities as far as regards foreign service are perfectly clear. We must maintain our garrisons, and we must have two Army Corps at least to reinforce India if necessary. With regard to home defence, that is another thing. Is invasion possible?
  1680
  We have had that argued to-night. It is perfectly clear that there is no room for economy with regard to the Regular Army, and I should have thought, with a sufficient number of troops abroad and the same number at home, so far as linked battalions are; concerned, Mr. Arnold-Forster would have been better advised in seeking economy by making large reductions in the Auxiliary Forces. That would have been better than this system which reduces the Regular Army, destroys its efficiency, and depletes its. Reserve. The Cardwell system was the best piece of work that has been done for the Army in this generation. If that system had only been given a fair chance it would not have partially failed, and it has only partially failed because that condition vital to it, of keeping the same number of linked battalions at home as abroad has never been fulfilled.
  The Cardwell system provided us with adequate drafts for India and the Colonies. It provided us with seasoned men for the Reserve, and gave us such a fighting force as we had in South Africa. As a matter of fact, we were enabled, under the Cardwell system, to send the equivalent of five Army corps to South Africa. Now I ask, is it not the height of unreason, or rather the depth of folly, to abolish a system such as that, which has only failed partially, such partial failure as has occurred, moreover, being due solely to the mismanagement of succeeding Governments? We may say with truth that the Cardwell system has been sacrificed to a false principle of economy. Now we come to the point when Mr. Brodrick gave up office. Of course, the difficulty with regard to drafts was increased by the South African War. We had to maintain a garrison in South Africa, and there were a large number of overdue discharges from the Reserve. Mr. Brodrick attempted to remedy that by a plunge into a universal short-service system. The men refused to re-engage, and the result was that the scheme cost the country £2,000,000. I admit that it was a very difficult position in which Mr. Arnold-Forster found himself at the War Office, but I should have thought that what he ought to have done was to take temporary measures to

  1681
  fill up the drafts for India, and then have had a Departmental inquiry into the working of the Cardwell system, focussing, as it were, professional opinion on its merits. But he did nothing of the kind. He rushed in, really, where even Mr. Brodrick had feared to tread, and proceeded at once to abolish the Cardwell system and put in its stead a scheme which I think for futility establishes a perfect record.
  I have not yet found any agreement as to the exact nature of the scheme that he proposed, but taking his speeches last year I concluded that his scheme consisted first of all of dividing the in fantry of the line into two separate Armies—a general-service Army and a home-service Army. The terms of the general-service Army were to be nine years with the colours and three with the Reserve, and those of the home-service Army two years with the colours and six with the Reserve. Of those 183 battalions, ninety-five were to be at home, and eighty-eight abroad, and, as I understand it, this Bill becomes necessary because, in framing the home-service Army, so many battalions of infantry are disbanded, and in their stead is placed so many battalions of Militia. There seem to me to be some fatal objections to that course. I ask the Government first of all how they propose to officer the home-service Army. That Army is to have less pay—that was stated last year by Mr. Arnold-Forster—and will be serving alone at home except on the exhaustion of the general-service Army. Will any young man who wants to take a commission join the home-service Army? He will certainly not do so unless he fails to enter the foreign-service Army. Again, how are you going to enlist 15,000recruits a year for the general service Army? The noble Lord says recruits are coming in well, but we have not heard the ages or the condition of those recruits. I believe in time there will be a very serious deficiency in the number enlisted in the general service regiments.
  Look at the scheme as it compares with the Cardwell scheme in respect of the soldiers who will really compose the battalions at home. We had experience of what our Reservists were like in the South African War, and yet Mr.
  1682
  Arnold-Forster will upset the whole of that and form a body for foreign service composed of men having had only two years service with the colours. They can hardly, I think, be called anything else than an army of boys. I hope His Majesty's Government will pause before they enter on such a scheme as this. If you were to take temporary measures to fill up the drafts, and revert to the Cardwell scheme for the provision of drafts as a permanent measure, I believe you would solve the difficulty. If it is said that that is too expensive, I reply that it is better to spend money on perfecting the organisation of the home Army, making what economies you can in your Auxiliary Forces, than to establish a scheme which will be so highly injurious to the interests of the Army at large.
  *LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, this is a subject which I have had very much at heart, and I shall, therefore, venture to trouble your Lordships with a few words upon it. The remarkable feature of this debate has been that only one of the three noble Lords who oppose the Bill said anything whatever about the subject of the Bill. The noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) said very little about the Militia at all. The noble Viscount who has just sat down hardly mentioned the Militia, and, therefore, I am afraid their speeches have not carried us very much further. Both the noble Earl who proposed the rejection of the Bill and the noble Marquess on the Front Bench opposite started on the assumption that the liabilities of the Militia were fixed and firm like the laws of the Medes and Persians, that they always had been so, and were to remain so. I think I can in a few words show your Lordships that there have been many great and important changes in the constitution and liabilities of the Militia since that force was first founded.
  It is usual to begin the history of the Militia from the time of Alfred the Great, but I shall not go back so many centuries as that, but will commence with the time when the noble Earl's great pet, the Militia ballot, was first introduced, in 1757. I might say here that at that

  1683
  time there was every reason why the Militia should be confined to home service. Your Lordships will remember that a few years before that period, during the absence abroad of almost the whole of the Regular Army, the army of Prince Charles Edward had penetrated as far as Derby, and thrown the country into tremendous panic. It was chiefly that that caused the country to look again to its armour, and for some years after the question of the resuscitation of the Militia was discussed. The consequence was that, when in 1757 the Militia was reorganised on the principles of the ballot, the greatest care was taken to keep the Militia separate from the Regular Army. There was this reason for that, that when a regiment went abroad it was practically sentenced to death, and you could hardly conscript respectable men into the Militia and proceed to sentence them to death, which was the result then of sending them abroad. That sort of idea went on until the end of the eighteenth century, when we were hard pushed on land, and in 1798 an Act was passed enabling the Militia to volunteer into the Army. That was quite as great a change as any which is now proposed by the Bill submitted by His Majesty's Government.
  Then there was the Interchange Act of 1811, which permitted the British Militia to serve in Ireland, and the Irish Militia to serve in Great Britain; and, finally, there was the Act of 1813, which permitted the Militia to volunteer for foreign service. So that on at least two occasions the entire object and constitution of the Militia have been radically changed by Act of Parliament. As the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister pointed out, there is no reason why you should not enforce the ballot after this Bill has been passed into law. And, moreover, behind the Regular Militia there is the local Militia, which is confined to service at home. There are two ways in which the proposals of His Majesty's Government can be looked at—how they affect the Militiamen and how they affect the military defence of the country. There is no doubt whatever that the present arrangements have been pre-eminently unsatisfactory. I have always thought that the fact that we have gone on enlisting men for home service, telling them
  1684
  that they would only be employed at home, while at the same time at the back of our minds we intended they should do something quite different, was immoral and wrong. It was, indeed, only one of the shams which from time, immemorial have characterised all official dealings with our military forces.
  As to the effect of the proposals in this Bill on the Militiaman, I have committed myself before in this House to the statement that I do not believe it will make the slightest difference in recruiting. I do not believe you will lose one recruit by the introduction of this Bill, but I think it is quite possible, as my noble friend the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Bedford) said, that it may to a certain extent check re-engaging. I do not, however, think that is probable because, unfortunately, re-engagements are now very few; but if His Majesty's Government would think over the question of making some provision for a bounty for re-engaged men—it need not be a large bounty, 10s. or £1 would do a great deal in that direction—it would enable the Militia force to retain one of its most valued constituents, namely the Militiamen who have served for some, time in the regiment, and from which class our non-commissioned officers are obtained.
  I now come to the question of how the officers will be affected. I cannot help thinking that this Bill will put the officer in a far better position. We shall know exactly where we are. As things stand at present we do not know where we are. In the late war a great number of officers were put in a most unfair position. They did not like their regiments going on active service without them. In a great number of cases they were married men with families, and they were torn in two as to where their duty lay. I believe that if it was frankly stated to them that they were under this liability if ordered abroad they would go cheerfully. I know, so far as I myself am concerned, that it would lift a very great weight off my shoulders. With regard to the opinion of the Militia on this point, I may state that as long ago as 1896 the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who I regret is not in his, place to-day, and myself sent a circular letter to every commanding

  1685
  officer in Great Britain and Ireland asking him his opinion on certain matters in regard to the Militia, and amongst other questions we asked—
  "Are you in favour of enlisting the whole; of the Militia for general service in case of war?"
  Some 112 commanding officers answered our letter. Of those eighty-seven were in favour of enlisting the Militia for general service and only fourteen against. The others did not answer the question or were doubtful. I think that is very strong proof of how, even in those days, the Militia viewed this proposal. The noble Earl the Undersecretary of State for War has alluded to the evidence taken before the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, and I wish I had time to go into the evidence given on behalf of the Militia Recruiting Association. There, again, the opinions of commanding officers of Militia were collected, and an overwhelming number of commanding officers were in favour of this change. Therefore, I think, as far as the force itself is concerned, they are almost entirely in favour of the change proposed.
  With regard to the men, people are very apt to argue as if men in this country had a dread of foreign service. Perhaps I speak from a rather different point of view from many others, for my men consist chiefly of industrial labourers and artisans. The proportion of those men who have been out of England is enormous. They have no dread whatever of going out of this country, and it is absurd to say that amongst the working classes there is any objection to going on foreign service or of moving about the world. As to the question of married men, my own experience is that the number of married men is very small indeed. In my regiment the men are considerably above the average age, yet out of considerably over 800 men only forty-three are married. The proportion of married men in the Militia is not at all large. One word with regard to employers of labour. The noble Marquess said he was afraid employers of labour would object to this proposal. If I thought that argument affected the matter one way or the other I should be inclined to pause, but as I do not think employers of labour give the
  1686
  slightest assistance, but in a great number of cases throw great obstacles in the way of recruiting for the Militia, I do not think the adverse opinion of employers of labour should affect the question the least bit one way or the other.
  As to the advantages to the country, it seems hardly necessary to say that a scheme which gives the country 90,000 more disposable men must be of great advantage to it. It seems to me that the danger of the present system of I keeping a large number of men for an emergency which most people believe I will never occur, is that those redundant units are apt to be lopped off in moments of economy, and that danger far out weighs any danger which may arise from altering the conditions of service of the Militia. During the South African War a very large proportion of Militia units did volunteer, all honour to them, but at the same time your Lordships must not forget that a certain number of Militia units did not volunteer. Your Lordships can easily understand that it requires very little to turn men one way or the other. An unpopular colonel, an unpopular adjutant, an unpopular sergeant-major, a speech by somebody, or a paragraph in a newspaper, may turn men from one way to the other. I do not think that any military system is fit to be called by that name which depends on conditions so uncertain as those. If your Lordships pass the Bill, and if His Majesty's Government carry out in their entirety the promises made by the noble Marquess with regard to the equipment and training of the Militia, the country will, at practically the smallest cost, receive a vast addition to its Regular Forces prepared for service in any part of the world.
  *LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War one Question about recruiting for the Militia and the Army. It is well-known to your Lordships that at the present time non-commissioned officers who recruit for the Militia get a certain advantage from that; and very frequently, when the recruit has been a short time drilling in the Militia, induce him to go on to the Regular Army, for

  1687
  which they get another bounty. In that way the single recruit is in a dual position. Under this new scheme, which I am quite certain will be for the benefit of the Militia and will be greatly appreciated by both officers and men of that force, I think there ought to be some arrangement by which dual recruiting should be stopped. If a man enlists in the Militia he should be kept for the Militia, and if for the Army he should be kept for the Army.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, the debate to-night has been very interesting and, expressing as it does the opinions held by so many who are connected with the Militia, must be of considerable value. The noble Lord who spoke last but one said that many of the speakers had hardly mentioned the word Militia. I do not think that reproach is justified. It certainly cannot be made in the case of the speech of my noble friend Lord Ripon, nor of that of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. This Bill deals solely with the question of enlisting the Militia for foreign service in the event of war. We are always hearing accounts of the state of the Militia, and of the necessity of reforming that force and putting it in a more satisfactory condition. I venture to say there is no provision in this Bill which has that object. There is a great deal to be said in favour of doing something to put the Militia on a more satisfactory footing. I think most people will agree that the Militia in the past has been greatly neglected, and in consequence of neglect and also mismanagement the force has fallen a great deal from the position it held many years ago. On January 1st, 1904, there were 32,601 men wanting to complete the establishment; on January 1st, 1902, there were 21,148 wanting. That shows that there is still a great wastage and that the ranks of the Militia are not filling up as they should.
  I hold very strongly that the course that has been followed so much of late years of always having the Militia trained in camps away from their headquarters has had a very bad effect indeed on training and on enlistment. I can speak for my own regiment which, last year, for the first time in five years, were trained
  1688
  in the county town. I am glad they are to be trained in the county again. This Bill, however, does nothing to improve the officers or secure better officers. What it doss is to remove a practice which the noble Lord opposite, Lord Raglan, calls immoral, connected with the inducements to the Militia to volunteer for foreign service. The Bill no doubt, remedies that, and it has, I admit, attractions to many people in that it is more straightforward in that respect than the present system. But I maintain with others who have spoken to-night that the Bill introduces a fundamental change; and a far greater change than any of I those which have been referred to, in the constitution of the Militia. The noble Duke opposite, who always speaks with such authority, and to whom the House listens with deep interest, said that as great a change was made when the Militia were taken out of the hands of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties and put entirely under the Secretary of State for War. That change was, no doubt, an important one, but it was justified by the requirements of the day, and was nothing like so fundamental a change as the present proposal. No doubt this change will do away with the undue pressure that is sometimes put on Militiamen to enlist for foreign sevice; but surely that can be remedied by any determined colonel or by the district general, or eyen by the War Office itself, and it is not necessary to make so great and fundamental a change to effect that.
  The noble Marquess opposite, who lately was Secretary of State for War, twitted my noble friend near me as to his views with regard to the blue-water school, but when the noble Marquess had explained his view it seemed to me to be almost identical with that of my noble friend. The noble Marquess told the House one thing that we were glad to hear, and that was that the proposal of the Secretary of State to merge certain Militia regiments in the short-service Army had been given up. That is, no doubt, an important statement, but when the noble Marquess describes what the whole policy of the Government is, I confess I think it conies to very little. The noble Marquess says we want long service abroad and short service at home

  1689
  but we know that now short service at home is destroyed—at all events it has been suspended for a time owing to the impossibility of getting the men to enlist for short and long service at the same time. I cannot help thinking that the argument is a sound one that, though after a time all the regiments for long Service may be filled up, the same difficulty will again arise if you enter on short service alongside the other. I cannot see how that part of the scheme can stand and it seems to me a very serious drawback to the whole scheme, because for the moment it destroys the power getting Reserve men, which is such an essential consideration.
  I will not go at length into the whole subject, but I would like to know what is to be done with regard to the Volunteer force, a force to which many of us attach enormous importance. We believe that very often in the Army and elsewhere sufficient weight is not given to the excellent quality of the men in the Volunteer force. We get in that force, just as we do in the Yeomanry, a much higher class of men, more intelligent and more able to do splendid work in the field. I cannot share the views of my noble friend with whom I worked in the formation of the Volunteers, that in so doing we made the greatest mistake of our lives; it is one of the proudest things I have to look back upon in my public life that I have done my utmost to assist in the formation of the Volunteer force. The scheme put forward by the noble Marquess does not seem anything like so complete as that set forth in the speech of the Secretary of State last year. We do not know how much of that scheme will come forward again, and, therefore, I am not inclined at the present moment, for the very small gain obtained by enabling Militiamen to enlist for foreign service, to support this proposal without having before me the complete scheme of the Government. Therefore, if my noble friend goes to a division I shall feel it my duty to support him.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House at any length in replying upon the very interesting debate that has taken place. I would first deal with the criticism made by the noble Earl who has just
  1690
  sat down, in which he complains that there is nothing in this Bill to improve the Militia. It is my belief, and that belief has been supported by noble Lords who are Militia officers, that one of the effects of this Bill will be to make it easier to get officers for the Militia; and, beyond that, how would the noble Earl expect us to improve the Militia by Act of Parliament? The way we hope to improve the Militia is through the Army Estimates. It is quite unnecessary for us to bring in a Bill to carry out these improvements.
  EARL SPENCER: That would justify us in voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Not at all. The noble Earl stated that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State suggested originally that the Militia should be merged in the home-service Army and that that had now been dropped. That has not been dropped, because it has never been put forward.
  EARL SPENCER: It was proposed that certain Militia regiments should be merged in the short-service home Army.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: They were to be invited to join the short-service Army if they wished to. My right hon. friend made it clear that he would have preferred to see the whole of the Militia merged in the short-service Army, but that he recognised public opinion was not in favour of such a change, and, therefore, he did not definitely put it forward. The noble Viscount opposite has complained that he was still in the dark as to whether the other members of His Majesty's Government supported the scheme of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. It is curious that he should have made that complaint within a few minutes of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stating that his colleagues associated themselves with the scheme.
  VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: What scheme?
  *THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The scheme so minutely outlined by the noble Viscount himself in the course of

  1691
  his speech. The noble Viscount complained that he does not understand the scheme. I think he understands it well, for he gave it to us very succinctly and clearly. With regard to the other point he raised, that the scheme will not increase the Reserve of the Army, I would refer him to a Return which we presented to Parliament last year. It was moved for in another place by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and he will see from it that the Reserve under the proposed system would be larger than under the present system. I can assure Lord

  CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Northesk, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Onslow, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  (L. President.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Ludlow, L.

  Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Verulam, E.

  Manners, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Manners of Haddon, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  (M. Granby.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Methuen. L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Mostyn, L.

  Bath, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Muncaster, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hardinge, V.

  Napier, I.

  Winchester, M.

  Hill, V.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

  Raglan, L.

  Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain)

  more.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Robertson, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Rossmore. L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Devon, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Drogheda, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Ducie, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northampton, M.

  Hampden V.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Davey, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Denman, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

  Portsmouth, K.

  Monson, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Spencer, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  [Teller.]

  Temple, E.

  Reay, L.

  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order); an Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Saltoun that the question of enlistment is one which will not be lost sight of in working out the details. In reply to the noble Earl opposite, I would remind him that our policy is to reduce the Volunteers in numbers and apply the saving to improving their efficiency. I trust your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
  On Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 69; Not Contents, 21.

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]; PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]; NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a; then (Standing Order No. xxxix having been suspended) Bill read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned during pleasure.
  House resumed.
  The following Bill received the Royal Assent—Consolidation Fund (No. 1).

  LEEDS CORPORATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.