Sitting of 4 May 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to continued indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  SUBSTITUTED BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPOTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, introduced in accordance with the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, vi2.:—Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time Tomorrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time Tomorrow.
  Aberdare Urban District Council Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Colne Corporation Bill, time, Read the third time and passed.
  Halifax Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  Stockport Corporation Bill (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
  London County Council (Money) Bill. "To regulate the Expenditure of Money by the London County Council on Capital Account during the current Financial Period and the Raising of Money to meet such Expenditure; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill." To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Withnell," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Gerald Balfour; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  London United Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill; Hessle Gas Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [Lords]. Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Marylebone Chapels Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table. Bill to be read the third time.
  West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition from Hanley, in favour; to lie upon theTable.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Glasgow; and Stornoway; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Riccarton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Aberdeen (three); Airdrie; Ardrishaig; Ardrossan; Auchtermuchty; Banff; Bellshill; Ben-what (two); Blairgowrie; Bowmore; Carluke (two); Colmonell; Dailly; Dunbar; Dundee; Dunfermline (three); Dunning; Dunoon; Edinburgh (ten); Elgin (two); Ellenabeich; Fairlie; Glasgow; Glencraig; Grangemouth; Greenock; Haddington; Inverkeithing; Inverness; Keith; Kilburnie; Kilmalcolm.; Kirkcaldy; Lady bank; Larch-bank; Leslie; Lesmahagow; Leven (three); Leuchars; Linlithgow (two); Lochgelly; Longside; Mains and Strath-martin; Moffat; Monifieth; Newburgh; Newport (Fife); Nitshill; North Berwick (two); Peterhead (two); Pollokshaws; Prestonpans; Riccarton; Sandbank; Shanbryde; Strathkinners; Strathmiglo; Tarbert; Tayport; West Kilbride; Wishaw; and Woodstock; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Pimlico and Westminster; and St. Pancras; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Nettleton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MILK DEPOTS (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from St. Pancras, in favour; to he upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Ashton-under-Lyme, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th April; Mr. Sloan]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd May; Mr. Walter Long]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 149.]
  OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd May; Mr. Walter Long]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 150.]
  POST OFFICE (PARCEL POST BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).
  Copy presented, of agreement between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office Department of the United States of America for the direct exchange of Parcels by Parcel Post, dated 3rd/17th February, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3361 and 3362 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) TEACHERS.
  Return ordered, "showing—

  "(1) The number of Teachers who, after completing a two years course of training, were appointed for the first time as

  901
  Principal or Assistant Teachers in National Schools in Ireland in each of the three years immediately preceding the new financial arrangement of 1900, viz., 1897, 1898, 1899, distinguishing between Principal and Assistant Teachers, and between Male and Female Teachers.

  "(2) The classification of the Teachers so appointed, distinguishing as before between Prircipal and Assistant and between Male and Female Teachers.

  "(3) The average total salaries paid out of Imperial Funds to the Teachers referred to in Section 1, giving the averages for Principal and Assistant Teachers separately, and for Male and Female Teachers separately.

  "(4) The number of Teachers who, after completing a two years course of training, were appointed for the first time as Principal or Assistant Teachers in National Schools in Ireland in each of the years immediately following the new financial arrangement of 1900, viz., 1901, 1902, 1903, distinguishing between Principal and Assistant Teachers and between Male and Female Teachers.

  "(5) The classification or grade of the Teachers so appointed, distinguishing as before between Principal and Assistant Teachers and between Male and Female Teachers.

  "(6) The average total salaries paid out of Imperial Funds to the Teachers referred to in Section 4, giving the averages for Principal and Assistant Teachers saparately, and for Male and Female Teachers separately."—(Mr. Dillon.)

  GROSS DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "showing for the financial years 1894–5, 1904–5, and 1905–6 (estimated), respectively, the total annual Expenditure of each of the following Departments, viz.:—

  "(1) Army (including Ordnance Factories).

  "(2) Navy.

  "(3) Civil Services.

  " (4) Revenue Departments; under each of the following headings for each Department, viz.:—

  "(a) Expenditure from net Votes voted in Supply.

  902

  "(b) Expenditure from receipts appropriated in aid.

  "(c) Expenditure out of issues to meet capital expenditure under various Acts.

  "(d) Expenditure incurred on account of this Department by other Departments; together with the totals of (a), (b), (c), and (d), for each of the four Departments, and in addition a deduction, from the total of each Department, of the Expenditure incurred by that Department on account of other Departments."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return ordered, "of the amounts of all Public Revenue derived from Taxes levied by Parliament and from any other sources, which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1903–4, 1904–5, and 1905–6 (estimated), with the totals in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 253, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Return ordered, "of the Naval Expenditure of this Country in the years 1880, 1890, 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904, and of the Naval Expenditure of France, Russia, Germany, Japan, and America in the same years."—(Sir Edgar Vincent)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Wages Deductions in the Potteries in Contravention of the Truck Acts
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a letter by Mr. Redgrave, superintending inspector of factories, in which that official says that his experience shows that there are pot banks in which inquiry would easily prove that the Truck Acts are being contravened; whether, in this case, it is the duty of the inspector to prosecute; and whether prosecution will be directed in all such cases with a view to the enforcement of the law.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I was not aware that a letter

  903
  had been written by Mr. Redgrave on this subject to the Press; but the question of the system of deductions prevailing in the potteries (many of which I may say are customary deductions of very old standing) has engaged my attention for some time, and special instructions were given some months ago to the superintending inspector to inquire into the matter thoroughly and report to the Department. The investigations are not yet complete, and I have not yet received the report, but I understand that a movement is in progress in the district for the abolition of deductions, and that a number of firms have already wholly or partially abolished them. It is the duty of the inspector to prosecute for contraventions of the Truck Acts, and proceedings will be taken, if necessary, in this trade as in others.

  Amendment of the Truck Acts
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the expression, in the judgment of the King's Bench Division, in the case of Squire v. the Midland Lace Company, by a Court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and two other Judges, of a hope that an amendment of the Truck Laws may be made; and whether His Majesty's Government will introduce a Bill to deal with the flaws in the Truck Acts revealed in the failure of this and some other recent prosecutions by His Majesty's inspectors of factories.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Justice Kennedy in the case to which the right hon. Baronet refers. I consider that it is desirable to amend and consolidate the Truck Acts, but I cannot undertake to introduce a Bill for that purpose in the present session.

  Vaccination Prosecutions at Brighton.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the vaccination officer for the borough of Brighton has recently obtained warrants of distress upon the goods of several persons in the borough for alleged noncompliance with^ the terms of The
  904
  Vaccination Act, 1898; and, seeing that this officer is employed by the Brighton-Board of Guardians, and paid by that body, will he state why they were not communicated with before such measures, were resorted to.
  (Answered by Mr. Grant Lawson.) The Local Government Board have not received any information as to the matter referred to; but, in their opinion, the application for a distress warrant forms part of the proceedings for the enforcement of the Vaccination Acts. These proceedings the vaccination officer is empowered to take without previous communication with the guardians.

  Consular Reports.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether instructions can be given to His Majesty's Consular officials to expedite the sending of Consular Reports upon the Trade and Commerce of Foreign Countries and Towns; and whether the Foreign Office can arrange for the prompter issue to the public of such Reports.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) With regard to the first part of the Question, a Circular Despatch on the subject has already been prepared, and is about to be sent to His Majesty's Consular officials. As regards publication, it is not found possible to edit and print the Reports, more promptly than is done at present.

  Scottish Church Dispute.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he can now state the number of churches now in possession of the legal Free Church,, distinguishing the number in their possession at October, 1900, and those subsequently obtained by interdict or otherwise in consequence of the House of Lords judgment; the number of notices of ejectment from their manses recently served on ministers of the United Free Church, and the form of such notice; and will he specify according to counties the number of churches held by the legal Free Church, and the number of manses to which the notices as above were sent.

  905
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) According to my latest information I believe the following figures correctly give the facts desired by the hon. Member: At the present time the Free Church is in possession altogether of 121 churches or thereby. Of these thirty were retained by the Free Church at October, 1900. The remainder have been regained since that date, the great majority of them since the judgment of the House of

  Name of County.

  Number of Churches Held.

  Number of manse notices issued.

  Argyll

  13

  17

  Aberdeen

  1

  0

  Ayr

  3

  4

  Bute

  8

  6

  Caithness

  7

  8

  Dumbarton

  1

  1

  Edinburgh

  2

  1

  Elgin

  1

  1

  Fife

  3

  1

  Forfar

  1

  0

  Inverness

  15

  27

  Lanark

  4

  1

  Nairn

  1

  1

  Orkney

  0

  1

  Perth

  1

  4

  Renfrew

  1

  1

  Rpss

  39

  32

  Sutherland

  10

  9

  Totals

  121

  115

  Lords 1st August last. Forty-two have been regained by processes of interdict. One hundred and fifteen notices in terms of the annexed print were issued to ministers of the United Free Church on 3rd ultimo.
  Note.—According to Counties of the number of Churches held by Free Church and number of manses to "which above-mentioned notices were sent.
  Form of Notice.
  18, Hcriot Row, Edinburgh.
  3rd April, 1905.
  Reverend and Dear Sir,
  Free Church.
  On behalf of the Free Church of Scotland and this congregation, we are instructed to intimate to you that the manse pertaining to the congregation at present occupied by you may shortly be required for the use of a minister of the Free Church. Our clients desire to arrange with you amicably as to your removal which, in the circumstances,you will no doubt recognise to be inevitable. We shall therefore be glad to have from you an undertaking to remove at May 28th next, or so soon thereafter as may be required by our clients, on your receiving from them one month's previous notice in writing. If you do not see your way to give such an undertaking, we shall be under the necessity of taking proceedings in Court against you. Kindly let us hear from you in course. Meantime, and unless otherwise arranged, you will please accept this letter as formal notice to leave at May 28th next.
  Yours faithfully,
  To the Reverend
  United Free Church Minister.

  Post Office and National Telephone Company's Employees
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to Clause 8, Section 7, of the Telegraph Act, 1863–1892, under which the Post Office in taking over the establishments of the then existing telegraph companies also undertook to employ every officer and clerk of the companies who had been not less than five or seven years in the service of the companies, or failing such employment to give them compensation in annual pensions fixed according to length of service; whether it was also arranged in the case of the telegraph companies' servants that those who entered into the service of the Postmaster-General should be entitled to count their years of continuous service with the telegraph companies as years passed in the Civil Service of the Crown: and
  908
  whether he will state that similar arrangements will be extended to the servants of the National Telephone Company as were made forty-two years ago in the case of the servants of the telegraph companies.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the provisions in the Telegraph Act of 1868 dealing with the transfer of the staffs of the various telegraph companies to the Post Office, provisions which are not quite correctly stated by the hon. Member. I am not prepared to propose similar arrangements as regards the staff of the National Telephone Company, since I believe that to follow that precedent in the present instance would impose an inequitable burden on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.

  Postal Work at Coleraine.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Coleraine the total amount of cash, licences, postal orders, and stamps, varying from £300 to £700 per day, has been in charge of the sorting clerk and telegraphist at the counter work, and in February last a Return was furnished on these lines; that on April 1st these figures were reduced by nearly one-half and a Return taken and substituted for the previous one by special instruction of the surveyor, and that since then the reduction in licences, postal orders, and stamps has been maintained, but the full amount of cash has been replaced; and, if so, will he say whether these alterations were made for the purpose of dealing with the reclassification of offices; and whether a similar method has been adopted in other offices.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have no information about the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but I may" at once say that they could have no bearing whatever on the classification of Coleraine.

  Construction of Harbour at Innishlyre, near Westport.
  DR. AMBROSE: To-ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to construct the harbour at Innishlyre, near Westport, for which a

  909
  grant has been allocated under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act; and, if so, when will the works be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am not at present in a position to give a definite reply to this Question. The Government are in communication with the Midland Great Western Railway Company on the subject.

  Sales under the Irish Land Act of 1903.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in cases of sale under the Land Act of 1903, the Estates Commissioners do not collect the interest accruing before the issue of the vesting order where the sale takes place under Form H; and, if so, what is the cause of this departure from the ordinary procedure.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Form H has reference to the sale by the vendor, to any of the classes of purchasers enumerated in Sections 2 and 4, of a parcel of land at the time of the agreement for sale in the occupation of the vendor; and the seventh paragraph of the form provides that the purchaser is to be put in possession on a day not later than the day of the advance. The 35th Section of the Land Act of 1896 does not apply to such cases. Whenever the vendor puts the purchaser into possession arrangements may be made between them for the payment of interest pending the making of the advance, but such interest is not collectible by the Land Commission.

  Jamaica Steamship Service
  MR. GUTHRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what modifications, if any, have been made in the contract dated April 19th, 1900, with Elder, Dempster, and Company, for a steamship service between Jamaica and the United Kingdom; whether, in view of the fact that the condition in Clause 3, Sub-section (a), of that contract, providing that on or before January 16th, 1904, the steamers used in the service to date should be replaced by larger and swifter steamers, with an average speed of not less than thirteen knots an hour, with adequate space for the conveyance of fruit and passengers,
  910
  has not been fulfilled, ha will say whether the yearly subsidy of £40,000 per annum has, in accordance with the contract, been reduced to £30,000 per annum as from January 16th, 1901, and, if so, what has been the amount of subsidy repaid by the contractors, or what amount has been deducted from the subsidy; whether he is aware that the obligation under the contract to purchase, at current market rates, 20,000 bunches of bananas for each voyage from Jamaica to the English part has not been carried out, and that this part of the contract is now being carried out by an American fruit trust; whether the consent of the Crown Agents has been given to any assignment or underlease of the benefit of the contract, or any part thereof, dated April 19th, 1900; and whether, seeing that the condition of the contract dated January 16th, 1900, with Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Company, making provision for a service for two ports in Jamaica, has, as regards Port Antonio, never been fulfilled, he will say whether any, and, if any, what, equivalent or compensation has been obtained for the loss to the colony of this service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No modifications have been made in the contract referred to. The steamers at present employed in the service satisfy all the requirements of Clause 3 of the contract, with the possible exception of the provision as to speed (Sub-sect-on b) with regard to which there have been negotiations with the contractors; and one of the steamers employed largely exceeds the requirement of the contract as regards both speed and capacity. No deduction has been made from the subsidy payable to the contractors. The obligation to purchase, at current market rates, 20,000 bunches of bananas for each voyage has been carried out by the contractors with the exception of a period subsequent to the hurricane of August, 1903, when no bananas were procurable. No part of the contract ha3 been assigned or underlet, but the contractors have appointed Messrs. Elders and Fyffes, Limited, their agents for carryingout that part of the contract which relates to the purchase of fruit. The condition requiring that the contract steamers should call at Port Antonio has been

  911
  waived with the consent of the Jamaica Government, a service carried on by-Messrs. Elders and Fyffes between Montego Bay and Manchester being accepted in the first instance as an equivalent. Since the discontinuance of that service the contractors have initiated a new service between England and the northern ports of Jamaica, the continuance of which will be conditional upon its receiving reasonable support from the Jamaica fruit-growers.

  Amounts received by Royal Patriotic Corporation towards Soldiers Effects Fund under the Regimental Debts Act.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War the various amounts handed over in the last ten years to the Royal Patriotic Corporation under the Regimental Debts Act, towards the Soldiers Effects Fund, and the date of the most recent contribution.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The amounts handed over annually to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the Soldiers Effects Fund during the last ten years were as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Handed over in 1895

  5,403

  13

  2

  Handed over in 1896

  3,129

  19

  11

  Handed over in 1897

  1,544

  2

  1

  Handed over in 1898

  3,208

  2

  5

  Handed over in 1899

  1,397

  1

  8

  Handed over in 1900

  1,465

  5

  8

  Handed over in 1901

  2,866

  4

  2

  Handed over in 1902

  3,186

  7

  0

  Handed over in 1903

  1,272

  2

  5

  Handed over in May,1904

  2,263

  4

  8

  £25,736

  3

  2

  A sum of £5,943 3s. 2d. is about to be handed over to the Corporation. These amounts represent stock (Consols), the result of investments of cash balances of "Effects" (and dividends thereon) pending the completion of the period after which they became available for transfer to the Patriotic Fund under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893.

  Promotion of Warrant Officers (Royal Artillery)—Age Limit.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the age limit
  912
  for promotion of warrant officers, Royal Artillery, to lieutenant district officer is forty years, and to quartermaster forty-five years; and, if so, what is the reason of such distinction; and whether it is possible to make the age limit for promotion to the former rank the same as to the latter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The age limits are as stated in the Question. It is regarded as a concession to deserving warrant officers to take them as old as forty-five for the position of quartermaster, but in view of the more active duties of district officer it is held that the age of forty should not be exceeded at the time of selection. It is not, therefore, considered advisable to make the suggested alteration in the regulations.

  Army Estimates—Vote 7.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he can take Vote 7 of the Army Estimates; and whether he will place this Vote on an early Supply night, to enable the action of the War Office in regard to Army boot contracts to be discussed.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I cannot as yet fix the date for taking this Vote, but I may remind the hon. Member that a great deal of time has been given this session to Army Votes and that other Supply Services have claims upon the attention of Committee of Supply.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H.M.S. "Stormcock"—British Gunboats at Irish Evictions
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say by whose authority H.M.S. "Stormcock" was recently employed to convey bailiffs and police to Dursey Island for the purpose of carrying out evictions; whether the expenses incurred n the transport of the bailiffs and police were defrayed by the Admiralty and will appear in the Naval Estimates; and whether it is proposed to place His

    913
    Majesty's ships at the disposal of evicting Irish landlords.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIR-ALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Admiralty having ascertained through the Irish Executive that the sheriff had bona fide requisitioned the services of this vessel, then in his bailiwick, to aid him in the execution of the King's writ, issued the necessary directions accordingly. So far as known no special expenses were incurred in connection with this service.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: The right hon. 'Gentleman has not answered the last -part of the Question.
    MR. PRETYMAN: I think it was hardly asked seriously, but if the hon. Member desires an Answer it is in the negative.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Was not the "Stormcock" sent to the rescue of a vessel on the rocks, and did she not arrive too late because her men were engaged in bombarding a poor man's hut?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are officers and men joining the Royal Navy informed that they will be expected to assist in Irish evictions?
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is really not relevant to the Question on the Paper.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was the instruction given by the Admiralty here or was the communication solely with the admiral at Queens-town?
    MR. PRETYMAN: The orders were issued by the Admiralty here.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were the bluejackets under the command of the civil or of the naval authorities on this occasion.?
    MR. PRETYMAN: There were no naval ratings on the boat.
    MR. REDDY: What has been the cost of the expedition to the Admiralty?
    MR. PRETYMAN: I have said no expenses were incurred.

    Discharges from Chatham Dockyard.
    MR. TUFF: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the present condition of trade in this country and the fact that the question of the unemployed is still engaging the consideration of the municipalities of Rochester, Chatham, and Gillingham, he could see his way to recommending the postponement of further discharges in His Majesty's Dockyard at Chatham.
    MR. PRETYMAN: I fear the hon. Member's request cannot be complied with, as the effect of postponing discharges now would be to increase the number necessarily discharged at a later date, and a time of year more unsuitable for obtaining employment elsewhere.

    Naval Construction
    MR. PARTINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the amount of tonnage and its cost added by new construction to the British, French, German, United States of America, and Russian navies for the five years ending 31st March, 1905.
    MR. PRETYMAN: These figures will take some time to prepare, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member would postpone his Question till Monday.

    Flogging in Military Prisons.
    MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for I War how many cases of corporal punishment by flogging there have been in the military prisons at home and abroad during the year 1904.
    THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): In military prisons at home there were no cases. Abroad there were two cases, both for gross personal violence to prison officers.
    MR. TOMKINSONasked if it would not be possible to place Returns on these subjects in the hands of hon. Members during the session instead of distributing them in the uutumn?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was difficult to anticipate the Returns, but if the hon. Member required any special information he would endeavour to get it for him.

    Powers of the Transvaal Assembly
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what powers are given to the Transvaal Representative Assembly for the control of the railways, the South African Constabulary, the land settlement schemes, the taxation essential to pay the interest on the—35,000,00 loan, and the taxation on commodities imported into the country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The control of railways, of the South African Constabulary, and of expenditure out of the Guaranteed Loan on Land Settlement is by the Order in Council of May 20th, 1903, printed at page 5 of Cd. 1641, vested in the Intercolonial Council. The new Assembly will have powers of legislation with regard to land settlement. The interest on the—35,000,000 loan is a first charge upon railway revenue, which is under the control of the Intercolonial Council, and is further secured on all the assets and revenues of the Transvaal. Customs taxation is fixed by legislation in the Transvaal as well as in the other South African Colonies in accordance with the Customs Convention between the Colonies of 1903. It can only be varied by fresh agreement between the several contracting Colonies.

    British Labour in South Africa.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the new Transvaal Constitution, it will be possible for the Legislative Assembly to pass a law, similar to the Australian Immigration Act, whereby working men belonging to the United Kingdom may be excluded from the Colony.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Any legislation elating to immigration would, of course, be subject to the ordinary power of disallowance belonging to the Crown.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will t be exercised in the case I have mentioned?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I am not going to an hypothesis of that kind.

    Responsible Government in Orange River Colony
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for be Colonies whether any communications have been received from the Governor of the Orange River Colony with regard to the granting of representative or responsible government to that Colony at the same time as to the Transvaal, and to the state of opinion n the Orange River Colony on the subject; and will such communication be laid upon the Table.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Governor has informed me that a resolution in favour of responsible government was passed at a Congress held at Brandfort it the beginning of December, but the deputation which presented the resolutions passed at the Conference to the Lieutenant-Governor did not refer to this particular resolution, which was not included among those he was desired to forward. I have also received an account of a meeting at which a resolution in favour of responsible government was passed at Vrede in February. I will include these resolutions among the next Papers.

    Mineral Concessions in India.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will give a Return of the mineral concessions granted in India; since 1880, showing the position and extent of the areas and the names of the parties to whom the concessions have been granted; and whether he will state-the general nature of the terms.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I will ask the Government of India

    917
    whether the Return for which the hon. Member asks can be compiled without an inordinate amount of labour, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result. Some, though not all, of the information is given in the Government of India's Annual Return of Mineral Production. The general nature of the terms of mining concessions in India is shown in the Indian mining rules, of which I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy.

    Lord Kitchener and the Indian Government
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any official information showing that Lord Kitchener is dissatisfied with the existing conditions attaching to his post of Commander-in-Chief in India.
    MR. BRODRICK: The present system of Army administration in India has recently been the subject of correspondence with the Government of India, and is at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.
    MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman has in no way whatever answered the Question. Does he see any objection to Lord Kitchener's Memorandum on the subject being laid on the Table?
    MR. BRODRICK: I could not possibly lay it on the Table, because it forms part of a correspondence which is at this moment under consideration of the Government.
    MR. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman not answer my Question?
    MR. BRODRICK: I have already answered the Question, Sir. It is quite contrary to all custom that correspondence relating to the Indian Government and the opinions of particular members of the Indian Government should be cited in this House when they are under consideration of the Government.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has Lord Kitchener tendered his resignation? Answer me that.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Arsenic in Beer.
    DR. HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps have been taken by the officers of the Inland Revenue to test the various materials used in the manufacture of beer; to obtain a Return of the specific ingredients so used; and to ascertain to what extent, if any, they were found to be contaminated with arsenic; and whether any standard of purity in beer has been laid down by the Inland Revenue.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): In respect to the first three portions of the hon. Member's Question, the procedure of the Board of Inland Revenue in exercising control and inspection over the ingredients which might contain arsenic, and which are-used in the manufacture of beer, is that provided for in the Revenue Act of 1888; the Revenue officials have caused frequent samples to be taken of other ingredients than those specially mentioned in the Gazette Notice of October 10th, 1901, issued under the Act named. They have tested not only glucose and "invert" sugar, but also caramel, malt, hops, and a number of brewers' worts; and, in cases where beer "regenerators" and yeast foods have been found arsenical, the manufacturer has either been cautioned, or sanction to the use of the substance has been withheld. The Arsenical Poisoning Commission bear testimony in their Report to the value of the work done by the Inland Revenue in connection with the Government Laboratory, and it will be continued as advised by the Commission. In regard to the last paragraph of the Question, the Board of Inland Revenue have no authority to prescribe a standard of purity for beer.

    Financial Returns.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Accounts and the Statement as to the National Debt will be published.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Finance Accounts are by law required to be presented to Parliament by June 30th.

    919
    These accounts cannot be got ready for presentation much before that date. The Annual Return relating to the National Debt is in an advanced state of preparation, and I hope it will he in the hands of Members before long.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Shall we have them before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill?
    MR. AUSTENCHAMBERLAIN: That is hardly likely so far as the Finance Accounts are concerned. With regard to the Debt Return I have given instructions for that to be pushed forward.as rapidly as possible.
    MR. McCRAE: Can we have any estimate of the proposed capital expenditure before the Second Reading?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot give more details than I did in my Budget speech, but if I rind I can do so I will.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why does it require three months to prepare these accounts? I think we had them in May last year.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot answer that, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes I will inquire of the Department from which I get the information.

    Grants to University Colleges
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the grants to University Colleges, i.e., to London, Victoria, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, and to Scotch and Welsh Universities have increased from £27,0C0 in 1903–4 to £54,000 in 1904–5, and to £100,000 in 1905–6, he can state how the sum voted has been allocated as between the different colleges; and if any equivalent grant has been made to any Irish colleges.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on
    920
    March 22nd† last, in which he stated that the increase of grants to Universities and University Colleges, Great Britain, was the first approach to an equivalent grant to England as compared with the other portions of the three kingdoms. There is, therefore, no intention of increasing the grants to Irish colleges. Scotland and Wales are unaffected by the increase. The allocation of the Votes for 1903–4 and 1904–5 will be found set out in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 2422 of 1905. The distribution for 1905–6 has not yet been settled.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why is not the allocation of these grants set out in the Appropriation Accounts?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: They are set out in the Paper I have referred to.

    Motor-Car Speed Regulations.
    MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the increasing number of accidents arising from excessive speed and reckless driving of motor-cars and cycles, and to the habitual violation of the legal speed limits, he will take immediate steps to strengthen the law and to secure its effective enforcement.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. friend may I be permitted to read his reply?—I have seen with much regret the reports of several recent accidents caused by motor-cars and motor-cycles. Reckless and inconsiderate driving should certainly be stopped, and I may point out that under the Motor-Car Act, 1903, it is an offence to drive a motor-car in a public highway recklessly or negligently or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public. Offences under the Act are punishable by fine and suspension of licence, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence by imprisonment, and I should hope that magistrates will impose penalties sufficiently deterrent to put an end to the
    † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 791.

    921
    evil, without its being necessary to resort to further legislation on the subject.
    MR. CHANNING: Do I understand that the Local Government Board are not prepared to consider at present questions of further legislation and stronger regulations? It seems to me they are imperatively demanded.
    MR. CATHOART WASON: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will take steps to reconsider the circular issued by the Local Government Board directly taking away the power of local authorities to regulate traffic in their own district?
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman refers to.
    MR. CATHOART WASON: The one issued by the Local Government Board.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise here.

    Alien Chauffeurs.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that aliens asking for driving licences under The Motor-Car Act, 1903, cannot be required to produce references from the police authorities of the countries from which they have come or their driving licences issued by such countries, the Government will give facilities for its progress if a short Bill to give licensing authorities powers as to aliens applying for licences is introduced.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am afraid that it would be difficult to distinguish between various classes of applicants for licences to drive motor-cars. If a Bill, is introduced it will receive consideration, but I cannot state beforehand what course the Government will adopt with regard to it.

    Local Authorities and Motor-Car Regulations.
    MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state how many local authorities have applied for power to fix a speed
    922
    limit for motor-cars within their areas; and how many of those applications have been granted.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Local Government Board have received applications under Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor-Oar Act, 1903, from forty-five local authorities. Seventeen of these applications have been withdrawn and several more are in abeyance. In twelve cases local inquiries have been held by inspectors of the Board, and in two instances orders have been issued, limiting the speed to five miles an hour as respects part of a highway on which ordinary motor-car traffic would in the opinion of the Board be especially dangerous.
    MR. CATHOART WASON: May I put my Question here as to the circular issued by the Local Government Board?
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think notice had better be given of the Question.

    Local Taxation Accounts.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Local Taxation Accounts issued by the Local Government Board do not show the local taxation receipts and expenditure of the several parishes, boroughs, and counties of the kingdom; and, inasmuch as such information cannot be obtained from the accounts by any ordinary examination of them, will he undertake to revise the form of the Local Taxation Accounts so as to bring them more into consonance with their title.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The last issued Local Taxation Returns relate to the receipts and expenditure of all the local authorities in England and Wales, some 28,000 in number. As regards the principal classes of authorities, the Returns give details of the amounts received and expended by each authority, but I am afraid it would not be practicable to show in them the amounts received and expended in respect of each of the 14,800 parishes. I am not sure, however, that I rightly understand what

    923
    is the precise suggestion which the hon. Member wishes to make, but if he thinks fit to communicate fuller particulars of it to the Local Government Board, it will receive consideration.

    Motor-Car Fatalities at Easter.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the sacrifice of human life at Easter, caused by the recklessness of motor-car drivers; and whether he will issue directions to the police to rigorously enforce the present law.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUULAS,): I do not know what are the cases which the ion. Member has in mind, but I have no information which would lead me to suppose that the police anywhere neglect the duty of enforcing the law as to motor-cars.

    Reckless Driving of Motor Cars
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a Circular pointing out to the magistrates that a fine to the owner of a motor-car is but a trifling deterrent, and suggesting that even for first offences reckless driving:should be punished by imprisonment.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think that Section 11 of the Act of 1903 contemplates imprisonment for a first offence, though its language may be slightly ambiguous; but in any event I do not think it would be right to attempt to prescribe to magistrates how they should exercise a discretion which Parliament has entrusted to them. I have no reason to doubt that they are fully alive to the necessity of enforcing the law.
    MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an amendment of the law to clear up the ambiguity of the Act?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Act is a temporary one. I am always obtaining information which will be useful when.any extension of the Act is required.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Are there; not very severe penalties which can be enforced?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: If notice is given of any Question I will endeavour to obtain the information asked for.

    Motor Car Traffic between Hyde Park Corner and Kew Bridge.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what authority regulates motorcar traffic between Hyde Park Corner and Kew Bridge; what is the maximum speed permitted by the regulations and what steps are taken to enforce obedience to the regulations.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Metropolitan Police control motor-car traffic between Hyde Park Corner and Kew Bridge. The maximum speed permissible is twenty miles an hour, as provided by Section 9 of the Act of 1903. The police take action against persons who infringe i that section or Section 1, which prohibits the driving of a car to the common danger.
    CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether the existing conditions were to prevail: until more children were murdered.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are we to understand that motor-cars may actually drive at twenty miles an hour between Hyde Park Corner and Kew Bridge?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am prepared to make the fullest inquiry into the matter if the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This is a question of speed. Are they allowed to go at twenty miles an hour at this place?
    MR. AKERS - DOUGLAS: Twenty miles is the maximum.
    SIR JOHN GORSTasked over what part of the route between Hyde Park Corner and Kew Bridge a car could be driven at twenty miles an hour without common danger.
    MR. CAWLEY: Was the London County Council refused permission to regulate the traffic at a lower speed than twenty miles an hour?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: That really does not arise out of the Question. In answer to my right hon. friend, I would say that there are hours of the day and night when a car can safely go at a higher speed than at other times.
    MR. CHANNING: Are these regulations made by the Home Office?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I must ask for notice of further Questions. I have every desire to give all the information I can, but I do not want to do it by way of chance Answers to supplementary Questions.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: But I distinctly asked in my Question what authority regulates the motor traffic at this spot?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The Metropolitan Police.

    Motor-Car Casualties.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the number and nature of the casualties caused by motor-cars in Great Britain and Ireland from 1st May, 1904, to 30th April, 1905.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I cannot promise to give this Return. As I have explained to the hon. and gallant Member, I can only obtain these figures for the Metropolitan Police District. In that district most, if not all, serious motor-car accidents come to the notice of the police. In the areas of provincial forces many very likely do not, and even if the police keep records of such accidents, those records would probably be incomplete. But I am willing to make inquiry as to whether records of accidents are kept by provincial forces, and whether, if so, they are likely to be sufficiently accurate to make them worth obtaining. It will also be necessary to inquire whether the figures could be furnished by the Scottish and Irish Offices. I am very anxious to give all
    926
    the information possible, and I have no desire whatever to keep back information.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: Will the right hon. Gentleman incorporate in those figures the number of accidents arising from horse-drawn vehicles?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: No, I do not think that is relevant.

    Police and Cyclists on the Brighton Road.
    MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a notice (in the Press) that a band of cyclists have been engaged on the Brighton Road to warn cyclists travelling at an illegal speed of the presence of the police; and whether, in view of the law against illegal conspiracy, he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: This matter is entirely one for the county police, and from the newspaper cuttings with which the hon. Member has kindly furnished me, it appears that they are quite prepared to deal with it. I see no ground for any action on my part.

    Flogging in Civil Prisons.
    MR. TOMKINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of corporal punishment by flogging for offences against discipline there have been in all civil prisons during the year 1904.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: In local prisons there were eighteen corporal punishments during the year 1904. In convict prisons there were nine.
    MR. TOMKINSON.How does that compare with previous years?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: It is considerably less.

    The Aliens Bill—Victims of Religious Persecution.
    SIR E. DURNING LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the immunity under

    927
    the Aliens Bill granted to those aliens fleeing from political persecution also covers those fleeing from religious persecution.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I fear I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave yesterday† to a Question from the hon. Member for Mile End; which was that, as the Bill is worded, this would depend on the facts of each individual case; but that whether further definition is necessary is a question that can be discussed on the Amendments already on the Paper.

    International Conference on Agriculture
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether His Majesty's Government or the Board of Agriculture will be officially represented at the International Conference on Agriculture at Rome; if so, whether such official representatives will be instructed only to watch and report suggestions made for international action as regards agricultural questions; and whether, in any case, any official representatives will be instructed not to commit this country to proposals involving any form of joint international control over matters affecting the interest of British agriculturists.
    THE PEESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. AILWYN FELLOWES,): The Answer to all three Questions is in the affirmative.

    London Port and Docks
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the proposed expenditure by the Belgian Government of some £6,000,000 to £8,000,000 upon the improvement of the Port of Antwerp; and, in the event of such expenditure, what proposals he has to make to similarly improve the port and retain the trade of London.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I am afraid I can add nothing to the
    † See Page 814.
    928
    Answer to the supplemental Question put by the hon. Member on March 23rd,‡ namely, that the Government is not prepared to make any proposals this session.

    Normanton Postal Arrangements
    MR. PARROTT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will make, or cause to be made, inquiries with respect to the necessity for additional or improved postal facilities for the Common, Normanton, Yorkshire.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I will have inquiry made on this subject.

    Telephone Agreement
    DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether, in view of the importance of a full inquiry into the proposed Telephone Agreement, and the fact that the Committee has not yet been appointed, he will take steps to suspend the clause making the completion of the purchase automatic.
    LORD STANLEY: No. Sir. It is not in my power to modify the agreement which I have signed.

    Scotland and the Agricultural Rates Act.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the method of distribution of the grant-in-aid adopted in the Agricultural Rates Act results in some parishes receiving more than sufficient to compensate them for the loss of assessable rental of agricultural land, brought about by the operation of the Act, while in other parishes the amount received falls short of what is required, with the result that the burden on non-agricultural ratepayers is increased; and will the Government take steps to remedy the inequality.
    THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): My attention has been called to the facts on which the hon. Member's Question is
    ‡See (4) Debates, cxliii 956.

    929
    based. I am, however, unable to give any undertaking as to the introduction of amending legislation.

    Irish National Board of Education—New Rules.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has satisfied himself during the recess in Ireland of the opposition to the new rule recently issued by the National Board of Education; and whether he proposes to enforce it or to cause it to be with-drawn.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Rules 127 (b) and 186 were reconsidered by the Commissioners at their meeting held on Friday last. Modifications of the rules were proposed by one of the Commissioners, the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. These modifications were unanimously agreed to by the Board, and will be communicated forthwith to the Treasury for approval.

    The Irish Estates Commissioners
    Mr. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Estates Commissioners were prevented from establishing.a special department for the management and improvement of estates purchased by them, for the purchase of untenanted land and the reinstatement of evicted tenants; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between the Estates Commissioners and the Treasury which resulted in the issue of instructions to the Commissioners to confine their inquiries to estates before them for sale, and to Plan of Campaign estates or to other estates similarly situated when evictions were not due to ordinary causes but to the land war.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners have no power to establish a separate department, properly so-called, for the performance of this or any other work, nor did they ever seek to establish such a department. But they have power to assign certain portions of their work to specified members of their staff, and this they have done with the sanction of the Treasury, given on the 23rd June,
    930
    1904. There was no correspondence on the subject between the Estates Commissioners and the Treasury, but communications in writing took place between the Irish Executive and the Estates Commissioners in reference to the matter. These were Departmental confidential communications, which I must decline to produce.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants in Ireland
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the promises in reference to the reinstatement of evicted 'tenants in Ireland, made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover during the debate on the Land Act of 1903, have not been redeemed, only 137 evicted tenants having been restored up to December 31st, 1901, out of 4,275 who applied; whether the Irish Government propose to take any, and, if so, what steps to expedite the work of restoration.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Section 2 provides that, on the sale of an estate, advances maybe made for the purchase of parcels of land for the purpose, amongst others, of providing farms for evicted tenants. My right hon. friend the Member for Dover stated that the reinstatement of evicted tenants was ancillary to the sale of estates. This I am advised is the correct view; and as sales proceed the matter will be dealt with. It is not intended to introduce legislation.
    MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the right hon. Member for Dover gave a distinct pledge that the work of reinstatement would be carried on quite independently?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have examined very carefully the various statements made by my right hon. friend, and I find that the statement I make h accurate—namely, that the primary object of the Act of 1903 is the transfer of land from the owner to the occupier, but that, ancillary to that, every effort would be made to reinstate the evicted tenants.
    MR. DILLON: Has the right hon. I Gentleman's attention been drawn to a letter from the Estates Commissioners to himself undertaking to institute proceedings in certain districts for the reinstatement of evicted tenants without regard to the sale of estates?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am not quite sure I have seen that letter. But I repeat it cannot be doubted that the question of the reinstatement of evicted tenants was to be regarded as ancillary to the primary object of the Bill—the transfer of land from the owner to the occupier.

    Instructions of the Estates Commissioners to their Inspectors.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the instructions issued by the Estates Commissioners to their inspectors, in February, 1904, should be treated as confidential any more than those which have been communicated to the House; who is responsible for drafting the instructions to the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners issued in. February, 1905; and did the Estates Commissioners approve of the alterations made by the instructions of February, 1905, as compared with the instructions of February, 1904.
    MR. DILLON: I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority the instructions given to the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners in February, 1904, to regard the provisional agreements made between landlords and tenants on estates offered to the Commissioners as only one of the means by which the prices which the tenants would be willing to pay could be ascertained, were altered into an instruction that these provisional agreements were to be taken as conclusive evidence of the tenant's willingness to buy at the prices mentioned therein; and were the Commissioners assenting parties to this alteration.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The first instructions were framed when the Act had only been in operation a short time, and were merely provisional, tentative,
    932
    and informal. The instructions of 1905, which were based on the experience that had been gained, were drafted by the Estates Commissioners and submitted to the Lord-Lieutenant for revision. I have no information upon the last point raised in the Question, and, even if I had, as the Commissioners are under the general control of the Lord-Lieutenant in respect of these administrative matters, I do not think I could enter into the question as to whether they approved of the action of the Lord-Lieutenant.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the point of the Question, why the instructions issued in 1904 under which the Act was-worked for a whole year should be treated as confidential while those issued in 1905 have been laid on the Table?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have answered the Question to the best of my ability. The original instructions were in the nature of confidential communications-passing from one branch to another.
    MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehends the Question. These could not be in the nature of confidential communications. They are the instructions issued in February, 1904, under which the Act was worked for a whole year. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Order!"] It is necessary for me to explain the Question at length.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If every hon. Member explained his Question the time allotted for Questions would soon be exhausted.
    MR. WALTER LONG: If the hon. Member is not satisfied perhaps he will put another Question down.
    MR. DILLON: I will put the same Question down again.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon Gentleman say why, having put on the Table the instructions to inspectors which have been in operation during the last few months, he refuses to give those under which the Act was worked for more than a year?
    ME. WALTER LONG: I have already answered that Question. I have said the original instructions were of a Departmental character and should be treated as confidential.
    MR. DILLON: I still adhere to my statement that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who was responsible for the interpretation of the law now acted upon in regard to inquiries of inspectors in relation to the equity of the price under Section 5 of The Irish Land Act, 1903; and why were the instructions to inspectors issued in February, 1904, altered in this respect while the whole question of the interpretation of this section had been referred to the Judicial Commissioner for a decision.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Estates Commissioners are in the first instance responsible for the interpretation of any section of the Act affecting any case coming before them, with this qualification, that they are bound, if requested by any person interested, to refer any question of law to the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, and may, of their own motion, do so if they desire his guidance. They have, I understand, availed themselves of this latter power, and have referred the interpretation of this section to Mr. Justice Meredith. The matter now awaits his decision.
    MR. DILLON: Why is it that the matter has not been allowed to await the decision of the Judge, but that in the new regulations now laid upon the Table of the House it is prejudged by the Executive?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why during twelve months of the working of this Act were the inspectors instructed by the Estates Commissioners to take all the equities under Section 5 into account; why in a new instruction have they been instructed not to consider the equity affecting the tenant but only the equity affecting the remainder-man and the encumbrancers. I want to know upon whose advice that has been done, whether
    934
    it has been done by the Lord-Lieutenant or whether it has been done by the Law Officers of the Crown, and why they did not await Mr. Justice Meredith's decision on that point?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is really very difficult to answer a Question of this kind, because the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is putting a question of a strictly legal character and extremely technical, and one which I say with great respect might have been put on the Paper, and not asked in this way. My Answer, however, is this: In the original instructions to the inspectors, as I understand the situation, the Estates Commissioners acted on their own responsibility. They required guidance. They are under a double responsibility—the first is to refer questions to their legal adviser, the second is to act under the direction of the Lord-Lieutenant. It was held that their views in one aspect of the question [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Held by whom?]—held by the Executive—that their views were not a correct interpretation of the law. If that view is wrong it is quite obvious that it should be rectified.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, now I ask the Attorney-General whether he did not state in this House that the Law Officers of the Crown had given no opinion and no advice to the Estates Commissioners on this or on any other question.
    MR. DEPUTY-SPEA.KERpointed out that the hon. Member was not in order in referring back to previous replies.

    The Estates Commissioners and the Lord-Lieutenant-
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the allusion in the Report of the Estates Commissioners to the instructions received from time to time from the Lord-Lieutenant, and to the statement that their proceedings have to a large extent been controlled by these instructions; and whether, in view of this statement, he will communicate these instructions to the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This Question has already been answered. No such regulations at are mentioned in Section 23, Sub-section 8, have ever been framed. My right hon. friend the Member for Dover evidently thought it premature to do so until some experience had been gained. He stated, however, in an Answer given in the House, that communications of a Departmental and confidential character had passed between him and the Commissioners. Formal regulations are now being framed, and I propose, as promised, to lay them on the Table of the House immediately after certain questions now pending before Mr. Justice Meredith have been decided.
    MR. DILLONasked why the communications which controlled (he Estates Commissioners in many respects is administering the Act during the last eighteen months would not be communicated to the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Well, I think they were informal. It seems to me to be the most convenient time, both for the hon. Gentleman and for those who have to defend the Executive, to discuss them when they are before the House.

    Afforestry in Ireland.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to take any steps with a view to preserve the few woods and plantations still left standing in Ireland.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am making inquiry into this matter, and would ask the hon. Member to defer the Question for a few days.

    Irish Poor Law Surgical Contracts.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds on which the Local Government Board refused to sanction the acceptance by several Poor Law Boards in the West of Ireland of the tenders for the supply of surgical appliances of Messrs. Adamson and Co., Ballina, seeing that this firm had already been in the past contractors for similar goods to several of these unions,
    936
    and carried out their contracts in every case with satisfaction; and if he will state why, having excluded Messrs. Adamson's tenders in several western unions, the Local Government Board has sanctioned their tender in the Ballina Union.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Board refused, in the first instance, to recognise this firm as qualified to contract for a number of unions because it did not comply with the requirements of the regulations. The firm subsequently undertook to comply with the regulations, and the Board have allowed it to contract for a proportion of the unions referred to, including Ballina. The Board were unable, however, to allow the firm to contract for the remaining unions for which it tendered, as they were satisfied it could not adequately perform the contracts.

    Clogher Valley Postal Arrangements
    Ms. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called by resolutions passed by district councils and by other means to the want of postal facilities in the Clogher Valley district, county Tyrone; whether it would be possible to arrange for a supplementary mail by Greenore and Holyhead, and thus give traders the opportunity of answering letters on the day of receipt thereof.
    LORD STANLEY: I am making inquiries with regard to increased postal facilities in the Clogher Valley district, and hope to communicate the result of these inquiries to the hon. Member within the course of the next few days.

    Ballina Post Office Medical Officer.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether any decision has yet been come to in connection with the appointment of a medical officer to the staff of the Ballina Post Office, county Mayo; and, if a decision has been come to and it is proposed to attach a medical officer to the staff in that office, when an appointment is likely to be made.
    LORD STANLEY: I have the matter under consideration, and I hope to make an appointment very soon.

    Vacant Lordship of the Treasury
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is a vacancy in the Junior Lordship of the Treasury; and, if so, can he state what is the cause of the delay in filling up the appointment.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The matter is under consideration.

    The Vote of Censure Debate
    MR. DILLONasked whether the Prime Minister was aware that an understanding prevailed to the effect that the vote of censure debate should not be taken before Tuesday. It would be very inconvenient' to many Irish Members if it were taken before that day. The Leader of the Irish Party had not been communicated with on the subject, and had left the House under the impression that it would not be taken before Tuesday. Would the right hon. Member for Dover be present on Monday or Tuesday, and, if not, would the Prime Minister consider the desirableness of postponing the debate until the late Chief Secretary could be present?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware of any understanding as to this debate. My right hon. friend near me (Sir A. Acland-Hood) informs me that, while he has no definite recollection of any explicit engagement, it is possible that from something which had fallen from him the impression had been gathered that Tuesday was the day when the debate would take place.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: The arrangement was that the debate should not be taken before Tuesday.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In these circumstances I shall certainly not rigidly adhere to the arrangement which has been indicated to the House. If it is agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman opposite I will substitute Tuesday for Monday. In that case I shall take the Second Reading of the Scottish Education Bill on Monday and the vote of censure on Tuesday. I have every reason to
    938
    hope that the late Chief Secretary will be in his place on Tuesday, as I have already said that my right hon. Friend would be here on Monday. I have no reason to doubt that.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no objection either to Monday or Tuesday. I understand from my right hon. friends near me that the impression is confirmed of an Understanding more or less precise that the debate would not be taken until Tuesday.

    The East Ham Education Difficulty.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state what policy he proposes to adopt with respect to the refusal of the East Ham Council to administer the Education Act, 1902.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I recognise the importance of the question to which my hon. friend refers, but I do not think that it is possible for me to deal with it satisfactorily by Question and Answer across the floor of the House.

ADJOURNMENT.
MR. ERNEST GRAY Member for West Hamrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "The refusal of the Council of the Borough of East Ham to administer the Education Act, 1902, as from the 31st instant, the prospect of other local authorities adopting at once a similar decision, and the policy of the Government in respect thereto;" hut the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen.
The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting', this day.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN EDWARD ELLISreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Mr. John Edward Ellis.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  RESIDENT MAGISTRATES (BELFAST) BILL.
  "To make provision for the appointment and remuneration of Resident Magistrates in Belfast," presented by Mr. Wolff; supported by Sir James Haslett, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. T. L. Corbett; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]
  WINTER ASSIZES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To extend the jurisdiction of Winter Assizes in Ireland," presented by Mr. Wolff; supported by Sir James Haslett, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Thomas Corbett; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

  SUPPLY [5TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS I.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £31,700, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
  MR. HARWOODsaid he wished to call attention to the miserable social accommodation provided for Members of the House. They often heard it said that the House was one of the best clubs in the world. He had not very much experience of clubs, but he was inclined to think it was one of the worst, and that there was not a third-rate club in London with so large a membership which would be able to keep its doors open if it provided such poor accommodation as Members of Parliament had to put up with. The Committee must remember the large number of Members who were compelled to be in attendance for long hours. It was not like an ordinary club where Members ran in for an hour or two, but there they had to stay very often for eight or ten hours consecutively, and under those circumstances he submitted that the accommodation set apart for them was an absolute scandal. Take the case of the reading-room. It was absurd to call it a room at all. It was merely a passage, and those who used it had to choose between being scorched by a fire or frozen by cold winds. There was only sitting accommodation for about twenty Members in it. Perhaps it was thought they ought not to be encouraged to read the newspapers, although one would have supposed it was their duty to do so. At any rate many were very fond of going to that place to read the reports of their own speeches, with the result that they were often in a state of semi-asphyxiation, they were suffocated by the bad atmosphere, while those who sat near the window were subjected to cold draughts and had the additional disadvantage of having their. I feet continually kicked by passers-by. And this was the place where Members of the House of Commons were supposed to study that great guide of public opinion, the Press. It was really most unreasonable that things should remain in this condition, and it was quite time I something was done to remedy it. Then there was the smoking-room. The windows of that room looked into a backyard, and the place was more of a playroom than a smoking-room. He was very fond of smoking himself, but he was bound to confess it was a most uncomfortable room, and one could not sit down

  941
  there calmly and quietly, smoke a pipe, and read a book as one would like to.
  It might be said that all this was inevitable because of the Gothic character of the building, but he could not admit that. Some years ago there was a change in the personnel of the House, and one of the official residences was surrendered. He then appealed to the First Commissioner of Works for more accommodation for Members, and although it was admitted that the existing accommodation was quite inadequate, he got nothing but that sympathy which buttered no parsnips. Improvements were promised, but nothing was done, and when extra rooms were acquired they were given up to Members whom he need not name. It was obvious, in the first place, that the tea-room should be enlarged, and he thought that the passage, miscalled the reading-room, might with advantage be thrown into the tea-room. Then they wanted a reading-room—a decent room which would not disgrace a second-rate club; and he thought they had a right to ask for one looking out on to the Terrace, one with a light and cheerful aspect, where they need not be either grilled by the fire, frozen by the wind, or have their feet kicked by passers-by. It might be said that he was asking for luxuries, but it was time that Members stood up for themselves. The habits of the House had changed since the days of Pitt, and Members now stopped longer in and about the House. There was good speaking in those days; but now lion. Members were compelled either to listen to speaking that was not good or to wander about the desolate precincts of the Chamber without a place to rest the soles of their feet. The Government were anxious to have a good attendance of their supporters; but how could they expect diligence in such miserable conditions? There were limits to the calls that could be made on a man's patriotism. If the Government wished their followers to attend properly they should see that decent provision was made for the moderate comforts of gentlemen. Membership of the House was like marriage according to the definition of Socrates—a condition which every one outside wanted to be in and every one inside wanted to be out of. Unless
  942
  something were done to bring the accommodation of the House up to the level of decent modern requirements there would be a deterioration in the character of the Members. The discontent was very widespread. The occupants of the Front Benches had comfortable rooms in which they could luxuriate, but the ordinary Member had a wretched time, not knowing what to do or where to go.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (New Works, Alterations, and Additions) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Harwood.)
  MR. WYLIEsaid ho also had given notice of a Motion to reduce the Vote, because he wanted once again to discuss the question of the ventilation and sanitation of the House of Commons. Many hon. Members might think it faddism on his part to raise this question year after year, and he would therefore like to point out that on this occasion his criticisms would be founded upon the recent report of Dr. Gordon, an eminent sanitarian, who had examined in to the sanitation and ventilation of the House of Commons Chamber. He would like first, however, to associate himself to a considerable extent with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member opposite with regard to the inadequacy of the accommodation provided for Members, and he would suggest to the noble Lord the Member for Chorley, the desirability of placing ventilating fans in the dining-rooms. They were now in common use in many clubs and hotels and they certainly added to the comfort of the users of the rooms. But his main object in rising was to deal with the insanitary condition of the Chamber itself.
  He admitted that there had been an enormous improvement in that matter in the last few years. The ordinary cleansing of the House was now carried on in a thorough and systematic manner, and, while he would take that opportunity of expressing to the hon. Member for Chorley his gratitude for the able and enthusiastic manner in which he had grappled with this question, he would like to point out that there were still two or three radical defeats. There was, for instance, a very unequal distribution of air in the

  943
  Chamber, and the system of forcing the air up through the floor was, in his opinion, radically wrong, for it caused strong draughts at places and subjected the Members to very great discomfort. Again, also on the authority of Dr. Gordon, the air was altogether too dry, and, whereas the proper amount of humidity in an inhabited room was from 73 to 75 degrees, in the House of Commons it was only 63 degrees. The system of heating it was absolutely wrong. The air was desiccated by steam-pipes and a certain amount of humidity was forced into it by artificial means. In ordinary mansions it was usual to heat the air by hot-water pipes which extracted from it less humidity and allowed I it to pass into the room in very much its natural state. But steam-pipes were in vogue in that House, and he had been surprised to learn that there was one in the cotton-wool filter under the Speaker's Chair, which must add very considerably to the discomfort of Mr. Speaker during the long debates that went on in I the House. Then the occupants of the Treasury Bench were subjected to a steam-heated atmosphere to an excessive degree; indeed on the Ministerial side of the House the Members were in a worse position than those on the Opposition Benches in this respect, and he hoped hon. Members opposite would bear that fact in mind whenever there might be any slight and unusual ebullition of temper on their part. There were also steam pipes unprotected in other parts of the House.
  It was quite clear that the system of ventilation was still in a state of evolution. He was somewhat in favour of the downward system of ventilation. In one of the parishes of the constituency which he had the honour to represent, they had a population which was growing more rapidly than that of any other part of Scotland, and he was glad to know that the municipal and school authorities had risen to the occasion and with great public spirit and much liberality had fitted some of their public buildings with improved ventilating apparatus. The Town Hall at Clyde Bank had been fitted with overhead ventilators at a cost of £3,000 and one of the schools had also been treated in the same way, and he had been in both
  944
  buildings at periods when they were filled1 by members of the artisan class, and he had found that in each case the ventilation was far superior to that of the House of Commons. He heartily concurred with Dr. Gordon that some better system of ventilation should be provided for that Chamber, and, although he was aware that a Committee which had: investigated the subject had reported against the overhead system, he did think the matter was one well worth reconsideration in the light of modern improvements.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he also desired to make a complaint in connection with the question of the amenities of the House. He had brought the matter before the noble Lord on several occasions, and had received a promise that it should be dealt with, but nothing had been done, and it seemed as if those in authority were flouted by their subordinates. The point was a very simple one. Many Members entered the House by a door which led along the main entrance. But a large proportion happened to have their hat pegs at the other extremity of the quadrangle, and found it more convenient therefore to enter through Westminster Hall. Now there was a door leading down some steps which adjoined the door leading into the crypt, and his suggestion was that that door should be converted into a swing door. It could easily be accomplished and would get rid of a great source of inconvenience, because Members who took their friends down to the crypt had to be very careful lest they were startled by a violent bang caused by the sudden opening of the door. Besides, those who happened to be in the cloak-room were subjected to violent draughts at the same time. He had been told that the alteration would be made during the Easter recess, then the Whitsuntide recess, and then in the autumn, but it had never been done. He should like to know why. Half the time of the constable, whose duty it was to attend to Members, was spent in closing that door after Members had entered or left. He believed the alteration was not made because some subordinate official objected to it. He meant, however, that it should be done

  945
  and he asked the noble Lord for some explanation why it bad not been executed.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he thought the time was approaching when the principal arrangements for the ventilation of the House should be made so as not to injure the health of hon. Members who were getting past their best. The ventilation was conducted in a most uncertain and unpleasant manner. The other night, when the temperature fell very much, the electric fans were kept running the whole night and the discomfort was very great. Then the windows for years past had been covered at night with thick curtains, preventing the air coming through the panes of glass in a natural way, and th.3 result was that the atmosphere of the House of Commons became extremely oppressive. He could not conceive why that should be done.
  MR. BRIGGsaid he wished to complain of the insufficient accommodation in the post office within the building. The number of letters received by Members, not only from their constituents, but from enterprising tradesmen, was rapidly increasing. A short time ago the number of letters received was 2,890; yesterday it reached 5,000, and to-morrow it would, in all probability, be 6,000. The officials did their very best; they were exceedingly obliging and courteous; but there were times when Members could not get to the window of the post office to make inquiries. Some improvement would have to be made. Over the post office there was a room now vacant which might be utilised; or the steps which led Members from another part of the House might be removed and the space made available for additional accommodation. Then why should not each Member be provided with a small locker or pigeonhole for his letters, with his own name upon it, as he had seen in other Legislative Chambers abroad? He knew that the Post Office officials were anxious that something should be done to improve the accommodation, and he hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would pay attention to this matter.
  SIRGEORGE BARTLEYsaid that whenever this subject of the-ventilation of the House came up there-were complaints that it was defective. He himself could not complain, and it seemed to him that the Chamber was very well ventilated. Some said that it was too hot, and some that it was to cold. It largely depended on the age of hon. Members. What he complained of was that they were getting more and more luxurious and wanted more money spent on these luxuries. He had no objection to these luxuries in themselves, but he drew attention to the cost. Session after session there were complaints, especially from the opposite side of the House, about the continual growth of the Civil Service Estimates, and yet here, on Class I. of these Estimates, Members were clamouring for more expenditure. He had looked into this matter in the library and found that ten years ago the expenditure on the fabric of the House was £37,000 and it was now £47,000, or an increase of 30 per cent. If a similar increase were made over the whole Civil Service Estimates it would mean an increase of £3,000,000. In the previous ten years the expenditure on the maintenance of the Houses of Parliament was £32,000 and now it was £47,000.When the country was crying out that I the Government was spending too much, the House should show an example of a; little economy in the matter of their own accommodation. Upon the Houses of i Parliament buildings the expenditure this year was returned at £3,800 as against £800 ten years ago and £400 twenty years ago. Then the present year's expenditure on warming and ventilation was shown at £27,000 whereas the figures ten years ago were £15,000 and twenty years ago £13,000. Those figures showed that the expenditure upon the Houses of Parliament had been doubled in the last twenty years. He was 'not averse to comfort and luxury, and he acknowledged that the tea and reading-rooms were not everything that could be desired, but inasmuch as-the expenditure of the country was. increasing by leaps and bounds, he felt it his duty to protest emphatically that if hon. Members meant what they uttered about extravagance they should, instead of advocating further extravagance in these matters, economise

  947
  in them and thus set an example to the country.
  MR EMMOTTsaid the hon. Member had given the House a lecture on economy, but he surely could best serve the ends of economy by voting against national extravagance. He (Mr. Emmott) supported the hon. Member for Bolton in regard to the better accommodation required in the tea and smoking-rooms, and he demurred to the giving up of rooms to a particular Member or official when they would be of service to the general body of Members. The circumstances of the case were somewhat new. The Whips of the Government were now nervous regarding their majority, and lately there had been, on that account, more overcrowding than at any time during the five or six years he had been in the House. The position might not be improved in the next Government, because if the Liberals were returned with a large majority it would mean a body of hon. Gentlemen earnest in their work, and they would be unable to find a writing table at which to sit. This was not a matter of minor consideration, but had to do with the health of Members and with enabling them to conduct their work with efficiency.
  MR. MILDMAYcalled attention to the inconvenience suffered by hon. Members in the lobbies whilst waiting to take part in a division, and asked that some improvement should be made in respect of the closing of the outer and inner doors.
  MAJOR SEELYdoubted whether the hon. Member for North Islington was justified in his appeal to the House to study economy upon this expenditure, seeing that there had been a positive decrease in this year's Estimate for new works, alterations, and additions. He would suggest that the hon. Member should preach and practise economy in matters where a million of money might be saved, and should support the Opposition when they voted in favour of real economies. Personally he would like to ask for a little more fresh air in the House. They never had an open window except on hot summer days. The present
  948
  system of ventilation was entirely out of date and was most unhealthy. Thousands of pounds had been spent by hospitals upon similar systems of ventilation, but resource had eventually to be had to the open-window school. With more open windows hon. Members would be better both in health and temper than they were under the obsolete system of forcing the air into the House through a subterranean chamber with its bacteriological surroundings.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESagreed with the last speaker as to the desirability of having more fresh air in the House, and thought good service would be done if the noble Lord would walk round the galleries of the House, break every window, and leave them broken. He entirely agreed with the views of the hon. Member for North Islington as to the impropriety—not to say indecency—of this House, which was pledged to economy, discussing the Civil Service Estimates by proposals to increase them. This increase of luxuries was a modern innovation. It was often stated that speeches were better in olden times than now. That was possibly due to the fact that a larger number of speeches was now made by the occupants of the bench below him. In the time of Pitt, when the speeches were good, the accommodation of the House was bad. Ministers had no private rooms with beautifully upholstered furniture, nor was there any dining accommodation. In those days there was no accommodation. Members had to go to Bellamy's chophouse. The last words of Pitt were not "Oh, my country," but "I think I could eat one of Bellamy's meat pies." This House was satisfied with a little dirty, unventilated chophouse in the days of the speeches. The worse the accommodation the better the speeches. A great deal of the luxury had gone where it should not have gone; it had gone not to the independent Members of the House but to the thirty-six Gentlemen who, with great honour to themselves and no doubt with great advantage to the country, sat on the Front Bench, and who, he hoped, it was not an offence to call by the ancient and honourable name of placemen. In the first place they had

  949
  their offices, in which they ought to do their work, and in the second place they had the Front Bench. When not in their offices they ought to be on the Front Bench, and to give them these apartments was only to tempt them to be not in their offices, or on the Front Bench, but reclining in those gorgeous saloons. The result of all this was disastrous; the more accommodation provided the less the Ministers were seen in the House. As a matter of fact, they only saw two heroic survivors on the burning wreck—the Secretary to the Treasury and the noble Lord who looked after the ventilation of this House. But the reason of that was that they had no rooms in which to recline.
  If the House really desired to increase 'the attendance of Members, it should secure the attendance of Ministers, because, after all, Ministers were magnets and where they were their followers would be, and when Ministers were not in this House their followers went into the tearoom, the reading-room, the smoking-room, and other parts of the House. That Chamber, and that Chamber alone, was where a Member ought to be when the House was sitting, and if he could not listen to other Members speaking, then let him make a speech himself. He conceived that the House was born for "the purpose of discussing the affairs of the country, and it was not, therefore, any part of its purpose to be a dining place, a species of restaurant, or a club. He had heard it was considered the finest club in London, but it was not a club and was never intended to be. The only part of the building that should be made comfortable for Members was that Chamber. Everything outside should be made as uncomfortable as possible, so that Members should be driven into the Chamber, because it was there that the work was done. If the House were better equipped with subjects of great interest to the country and to hon. Members there would be no necessity for these places outside. They ought not to be continually adding to the temptations which these places offered to Members to neglect their duty to the Chamber itself. Although this was put forward in the form of a reduction, what was really intended "was extra expense. If a reduction were
  950
  really intended, and they could get rid of some of these items such as the £1,500 for increased ventilation, which could be effected as he had before said by breaking the windows, he would have voted for it, but he could not vote for a reduction which was really intended to bring about an increased expenditure. There was too much luxury, too much reading, smoking, and chess. The place for Members was in the House, and the place for Ministers was on the Treasury Bench, and it was to his great regret that he saw both Ministers and Members fail in their duty.
  COLONEL WELBYcomplained of the way in which hon. Members monopolised seats in the libraries of the House by turning up chairs against the tables and keeping them in that position sometimes for the entire sitting of the House.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing that subject on this occasion.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid he would not pursue it. With regard to what have been said as to the want of accommodation, he desired to call attention to the fact that one library, the Speaker's library, was not used. That library contained a large number of books which were catalogued for the use of Members, but the room itself was not in the use of Members. It had been suggested by the mover of the reduction that the newspaper room should be aided to the tearoom, but he himself would suggest that both the tea and the newspaper rooms should be used as reading-rooms and the library to which he had referred should be turned into a tea room. It was a spacious room and a good deal would be added to the accommodation of the Members if his suggestion was anted upon.
  MR. DILLONasked the noble Lord to make a statement with regard to the present recommendations for the ventilation of the House. He pointed out that he himself was a member of a Committee which sat to consider this question three years ago. It was a

  951
  question which could not be solved, as was suggested by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, by the breaking of windows. It was an extremely difficult question and one which was of vital importance to the life and health of Members of the House. That Committee reported in due course, and it was with amazement that be saw distributed with the Papers another Report, drawn up by an outsider, which in many most important particulars upset the Report of the Committee. He had no quarrel with that Report, because he agreed with some of the conclusions of the expert who had drawn it up. What he wished to know was by whose authority the expert was called in to report, and whether the money which was now to be spent was to be expended on the recommendation of the Report of the Committee or the Report of the expert. As had been pointed out the air now came into the Chamber through the floor and from under the seats. Nothing could convince him that air coming in in that way could be pure, having regard to the fact that it came up through the floor over which hon. Members walked and thus into contact with the dirt which hon. Members brought into the House on their boots. The Committee reported, on the whole, in favour of the present system, but the expert Report condemned it and called for certain changes. As to the introduction of air from under the seats, a more uncomfortable method of ventilation never entered the mind of man. Air of a temperature comfortable to sit in was extremely dangerous when it came in a violent current on one portion of the body, and it was doubly dangerous on the feet and legs. He believed it to be the source of many of the colds, headaches, and the dull oppressed feeling of which hon. Members frequently complain.
  It was a moat absurd and hardly sincere advocacy of economy to talk about the expense involved. Members were entitled to ask that the conditions under which they worked should be decently wholesome. He did not know whence hon. Members got their ideas of luxury, he could see no luxury in the House. A more uncomfortable place he was never in. None of them wanted
  952
  luxuries, but they were entitled to such conditions as would enable them to discharge their arduous duties without unnecessary strain upon their health. The question was really a most complicated one. When he first entered Parliament, the sanitary conditions of the building would have disgraced a common lodging-house. Members were literally poisoned, and many men undoubtedly lost their lives in consequence of the scandalous and atrocious sanitary conditions, which, after many debates and at much expense, had been to some extent remedied. The conditions of the Committee rooms, were such that many men whose business forced them to attend suffered from blood-poisoning; and were incapacitated for work through the state of the atmosphere. Hon. Members of long standing would remember what a punishment it used to-be to serve on a Committee upstairs. It was not the fault of hon. Members that every improvement had to be dragged out of the Government and carried out at extravagant expense. Not even in the War Office was there such a system of administration as prevailed until quite recently in the House. The Legislative Chamber was controlled by three separate and independent departments who spent most of their time in quarrelling one with another as to who should dust the walls and who the seats. Under such a system economy or efficiency was impossible. He desired to know whether the recommendations of the Ventilation Committee had been carried out, and whether there was any one man or department responsible for the general caretaking of the House and the Committee rooms. On one occasion in the present session he found the; smoking-room thermometer register-ins 50°, and a violent draught coming through the ventilators. Young robust people accustomed to an open air life might be able to stand it, but for ordinary citizens who had passed middle life it was a different matter. He remembered once going into the smoking-room not suffering from the slightest cold, but within a quarter of an hour he was-perfectly voiceless. He did not think Members of Parliament ought to be subjected to such risks. If a smoking-room with such qualities could be constructed

  953
  specially for Irish Members many hon. Members might consider it a good reform, but as all Members had to share those rooms he submitted that such condition? should not be tolerated.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the Office of Works were the sole authority in charge of the ventilation of the Chamber.
  MR. DILLON: And the rest of the House?
  LORD BALCARRES: Of the ventilation generally. The defects of which many Members had complained were not the fault of the system of ventilation; he was certain that under any other system the discomfort of hon. Members would be infinitely greater. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight complained that the windows were always shut. If orders were given for the windows to be opened there would at once be an outcry. The Committee hardly realised the difficulty in which the Department was placed. Some Members complained when the temperature was high, others when it was low. There was a special staff constantly going about the House to regulate the temperature, and it was the endeavour of the whole staff to maintain an equable temperature throughout the day. Any Member of the House who went down with the engineer in charge and saw the system at work would probably revise his opinion if he thought the Department could be condemned off-hand. The amount of dirt which in foggy weather was intercepted under the floor and which, but for the cleansing apparatus, would come into the Chamber was enormous. It was no mere empiric system that had been adopted; it had been examined by expert after expert, and, as far as he could see it was really a very good system and suitable for the special requirements of the case. The recommendations made in the Report of the distinguished bacteriologist Dr. Gordon were in no way incompatible with the existing system; they did not supersede it at all. The authority who asked Dr. Gordon to go into the matter was the First Commissioner of Works. The Report of the Ventilation Committee was not definite or final on certain points, and the First Commissioner thought he
  954
  could not do better than have a still more careful inquiry by a professional expert to assure himself about certain points.
  MR. DILLONasked if Dr. Gordon did not condemn the air coming up through the floor of the House.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not at all condemn it. It was on his advice that certain improvements had been made in that system, including a system of cleansing by passing the air through water. The First Commissioner had asked certain gentlemen to make a further inquiry of a more or less experimental character into these highly technical questions, with a view to the settlement of the ventilation problem, and he hoped to have a Report before the winter. The Committee consisted of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University, Professor Haldane of Oxford, and Dr. Gordon. He assured hon. Members that he did not wish to meet their criticisms in any hostile spirit, but he believed that the system they had now was the best suited for their needs. A comparison had been made with the overhead system of ventilation which had been adopted in the Town Hall at Clyde Bank at a cost of £3,000. Personally, he would rather be in the House of Commons after a twenty-four hours sitting than in the town hall at Clyde Bank. The sittings of the House of Commons were so prolonged and the facilities and the time available for cleaning after the sittings so short that they must inevitably have some system like the one they had adopted by which automatic and almost unconscious improvement of the air was going on. As to the bacteriological tests made by Dr. Gordon he ventured to say that no owner of a public hall or theatre or incumbent of a church would for a moment dare to submit his building to such a test as the House of Commons had been submitted to, unless they were prepared for a panic on the part of the audience or congregation. Under the direction of the First Commissioner of Works most careful experiments were being conducted with a view to improving the system now in vogue. It was no good asking him to make representations

  955
  to the First Commissioner that there were many inconveniences in the division lobbies. He was in charge of the ventilation, but he could not alter the time honoured system unless he knew he had got the House of Commons at his back. Once he knew that he had the support of the House of Commons in dealing with any structural alterations he would carry them out, but he could not do this upon his own responsibility. He thought the hon. Member had overstated his case altogether, for, on the contrary, his constituents believed that at the House of Commons they were rolling in luxury.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he complained that they were not allowed to go into the reading-room.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid they were allowed to go into the reading-room when the House was not sitting. Hon. Members asked for more smoking-room accommodation, and better dining-room and tea-room accommodation and better writing-rooms. The First Commissioner was fully aware that these defects existed, but to remedy them was not quite so simple as hon. Members appeared to indicate. It was not a mere matter of asking for more money. If they had £100,000 to spend he was notsure that they would be able to improve the accommodation up to the requirements of the House. They did not so much want more accommodation as to have it more centralised and accessible. He did not think, however, that hon. Members made quite so much use as they might do of the accommodation that ahead} existed. The hon. Member for Keighley raised the question of post office accommodation. There was more accommodation ill the outer lobby, but that post office was eighty feet or ninety feet away. Complaint had been made about the seats in the library and the need for more writing tables. There were twenty-five writing tables on each side of the Members' Gallery upstairs, and the average number in use was one or two. As regarded smoking accommodation, no doubt the accommodation on the Terrace level had, of recent years, been largely improved; but hon. Members crowded the inconveniently small
  956
  smoking-room on the main floor to avoid having to come upstairs in a hurry to a division. It was not correct that all the accommodation was for Ministers; but since the new rules were adopted it had become necessary for them to do more Departmental work in the House of Commons than in their own offices, and it was imperative that they should have rooms in which they could see their Departmental officials and receive deputations. Nothing would give the First Commissioner of Works greater pleasure than to be able to solve these problems of House of Commons' accommodation, but to nine out of ten suggestions made there were insurmountable objections. The building was one of the greatest of their national monuments, and they must be jealous of proposals involving great structural alterations.
  MR. DALZIBLsaid that, before passing to that question, the noble Lord might answer the Question how it was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham still got a large room, although not any longer a member of the Government.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is preferential treatment.
  LORD BALCARRES: The large room in question is eleven feet long and five feet six inches broad.
  MR. DALZIEL: Why does he have a room?
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, though a private Member, was Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party, and he was conceded the privilege of this tiny room just in the same way as the Leader of the Nationalist Party and the Leader of the Welsh Liberal Party, who were also provided with rooms.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: The noble Lord has not given any answer with reference to the question of the door.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he understood certain officials thought that if the door

  957
  were opened the draught would be very serious indeed. It was on account of that objection the suggestion had not been agreed to
  CAPTAIN NORTONsuggested that a swing door might be provided.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked whether the Department was considering the possibility of providing extra library accommodation. The rooms now were very congested.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he should like to say a few words in favour of the ventilation of the House which had been very much abused. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that the proper ventilation was fresh air, and that the best ventilation was from open windows. But there were people who, while pretending to believe that Providence had done most things well, thought the best thing that could be done was to set up a little atmosphere of their own. They met these people in railway carriages, churches, and chapels. He never went to a county council, or a grand jury, or a church, without being obliged to walk out because the air was so abominable, but he was always comfortable enough in that Chamber. The other rooms in the House were not too well ventilated, hut that was because certain hon. Members were always insisting on shutting the windows. It was just the same in the Committee rooms in the old days. Now that ventilators had been provided there the atmosphere was very much better. On the whole he did not think any more money ought to be spent on the House. He should like more accommodation in the smoking-room, but he did not think it was necessary for hon. Members to be always smoking and always drinking tea. The hon. Member for East Mayo had told them that a great disadvantage of the smoking-room was that it made Members lose their voices. He did not know that the atmosphere of the smoking-room had this effect, but that might not always be regarded as a disadvantage.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEYasked whether some arrangement could not be devised to draw off the gas
  958
  fumes from the apartment adjoining the tearoom. The health and comfort of the waitresses ought to be considered, for they had to spend long hours there. He had experienced great inconvenience from time to time on account of the nauseating feeling caused by the gas fumes which absolutely filled the room. They would not put up with such an inconvenience in their own houses. It was really an intolerable nuisance, and he we aid, therefore, press the Department to do what they could to put a stop to it. If some plan could not be devised for drawing off the gas fumes, it might be possible to introduce electric heaters, so that hon. Members would not be subjected to the trouble which they had at present to undergo. As to the smoking accommodation, which was very small, he suggested that the fine courtyard around the large cloak-rooms might be converted into one of the most beautiful rooms in the whole building. It seemed to him a great pity that this courtyard could not be used by Members of the House. He should like to see it glazed over and turned into what might be termed a winter garden. If that was impracticable, he would suggest that a few tables and chairs might be placed in it so that during the summer months hon. Members might be able to sit in the courtyard instead of being driven into the overcrowded rooms.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he did not at all agree with hon. Gentlemen who, on getting into the House, immediately proceeded to complain of the provision made for their creature comforts, although they were far better accommodated there than at home. He thought, however, the arrangements ought in some degree to be consistent with the preservation of health. The House of Commons at present was not consistent with the preservation of health. He spoke feelingly on this point. He gave the whole of his time to his Parliamentary work. He was there from the time the House opened until it adjourned, unless health reasons prevented him. He had suffered severely under the new rule which robbed hon. Members of the half-holiday on Wednesday. When he was not in that Chamber he was working as hard as he could in

  959
  the library, and it was no exaggeration to say that in the library he had moved from room to room to get into a decent atmosphere. The Parliament of 1886–92 was a bad Parliament. It was a coercion Parliament, but still his Christian feeling compelled him to say that out of every ten Members one died, and he was confident that some of these deaths were due to the insanitary condition of the House. They were voting money for spacious rooms for the House of Lords which they never used. Members of this House would use those rooms if they had them. "Why were not the side galleries opened to visitors? Those galleries were not used by Members except perhaps half-a-dozen times in the session. As to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, he should be sorry to see the courtyard turned into a smoking-room or winter garden. That would be perfectly consonant with the English disposition, for he had always understood that the beautiful crypt had at one time been converted into a dining-room for the Speaker. He thought they ought to have pure air, be free from draughts, and come there without injury to their health. In the corridors there was never pure air; and the ventilation 'if the library was exeedingly defective. In winter the place was little short of an oven; and the whole place was intolerable. He would like to know why they should keep up three magnificent dining-rooms for the House of Lords which were never used. Why should not the Members of the House of Commons have the loan of those rooms when they were not used? They all loved the House of Lords, but he thought their Lordships would not be harmed by the Members of the House of Commons occasionally dining there. Full power should be given to the Members of the House of Commons to use those rooms and the library of the House of Lords.
  SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSONsaid that he wished to point out to the noble Lord that to give effect to the proposal of the hon. Member for the Totnes Division of Devonshire no structural alterations were necessary. All that was done when this method of conducting divisions was tried before was to move the desk at
  960
  which the clerks marked the names of Members from one end of the "No" Lobby to the other. He would also like to call the attention of the noble Lord to the armchairs in the Library. To begin with, there were too few of them, and most of the presumably Gothic ones that were there combined nearly every possible defect. They were extremely ugly, they were extremely uncomfortable, and they were very heavy and difficult to move.
  MR. SCHWANNsaid he wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the grill in the ladies' gallery. The ventilation in that gallery was perfectly abominable; and he had heard from foreign visitors that it was a great inconvenience. It was alleged that the grill had been introduced more than a century ago because the ladies had expressed disapproval of what had taken place in the House; but similar expressions of opinion had been made in the gallery set apart for male visitors. He knew that the hon Member for East Leeds proposed to have the grill removed, but that certain Conservative Members stood in the way. If it were removed it would be an enormous advantage to the ladies who visited the House. In no other Legislature in the world was there such a separation of the sexes and such an interference with the sound of the voices of the speakers. He hoped the noble Lord would take this matter into his serious consideration, and he felt sure that the removal of the grill would meet with the approval of the great majority of the Members of the House.
  MR. LAWRENCEsaid that there was an excessive and silly use of the electric light in the House. One day last July he found thirty-seven electric lights burning to the considerable discomfort of the House.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Lighting comes under another item of the Vote.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to a very important precedent set

  961
  by the present Government. He referred to the setting aside of a room for the occupation and use of a Member of the House who was not a member of the Government. The explanation given by the noble Lord was the most extraordinary he had ever heard on the part of the Conservative and Unionist Government as to why that course had been taken. They were told that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party. He had no personal objection to that right hon. Gentleman having a room; the right hon. Gentleman might have six rooms so far as he was concerned. But the statement that the right hon. Gentleman was the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party in the House was made for the first time on the part of a member of the Conservative and Unionist Administration. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham was not at all in the same position as the hon. Member for Waterford what led the Irish Nationalist Party, or the hon. Member who was Chairman of the Welsh Party. In their case they were duly elected by the Party the led at the commencement of the session, and they had their own Whips. But from what data were the Committee to understand that the Liberal Unionists in the House constituted a separate Party and a separate organisation? During the existence of the present Administration he always understood that the Liberal Unionist Party were part and parcel of the present Government Party, and that, if they were not the masters, at any rate they were the joint-partners in the Administration. When did the election of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the leadership of the Liberal Unionist Party take place? It had not been publicly announced. If this precedent was quietly adopted, it would be open to any Member to go to the First Commissioner of Works and make a representation that he was the leader of a Party, although he had never been elected to the position, and get a comfortable private room for himself in some part of the House. If this precedent was set, it was only a question of whether or not some private Member could bring suffi-
  962
  cient force to bear on the Government to get a private room. If the disposition of rooms was going round, why should not the Leader of the Labour Party get one? There was no Party more entitled to that privilege. An hon. Member might go to the First Commissioner and say, "If I am not a leader of a Party, I ought to be, and I must have a private room." He contended that they could not in that Ho is; recognise separate and distinct Parties unless they met at the beginning of the session and elected their own Chairman and their own Whips. He did not know whether the Liberal Unionist Party itself would accept the statement of the noble Lord. He saw the hon. Member for Durham present; and, in the absence of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, perhaps that hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee at what date the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had been elected Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party, and what qualified him to be the Leader of that Party? If the noble Lord said that the right hon. Gentleman was really elected Leader of of that Party, and was fully entitled to that position, he would withdraw all he had stated: but he contended that if the right hon. Gentleman had not been so elected as Chairman of the Liberal Unionist Party in the House, that right hon. Gentleman, had no claim to a separate private room.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he had been asked by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs to throw some light as to the Leadership of the Liberal Unionist Party, but he did not know that he was entitled to do so. As regarded the hon. Member's complaint that a private room in that building bad been allotted to the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, on the ground that he was the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party in the House, he could only say that it was the first time since Liberal Unionism began that he had heard that a room had been allotted to the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party, as such, in the House. For a great many years when the Party was a considerable power in that House it was led by Lord Hartington, and he never remembered that Lord Hartington had a room allotted to him there. Nor did he remember during the many years

  963
  he had been connected with the Party any formal election at the beginning of the session of a Leader of the Party in question. He deprecated in that House the breaking up of the constitution into too many separate Parties, too many separate leaders, and too many separate sets of "Whips. He thought they had gone quite far enough in that respect, and he could only say that the giving of an official position in that House to the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party was done without their knowledge.
  MAJOR SEELYasked the noble Lord to reconsider the matter. If it had been the custom to give a room in that House to the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party, then he should have one allotted to him now, but it was very doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party. He understood the right hon. Gentleman was repudiated by the hon. Member for Durham, and, no doubt, by other Members opposite. As a matter of fait the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party had never before had a room in the House, and why should the innovation be made when it was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman was the Leader of the Party. The noble Lord had unwittingly conveyed admistaken impression to the Committee.
  LORD BALCARRESdid not know whether hon. Gentlemen expected him to enter into a vexed question of this kind on a very small technical point. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs had remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West I Birmingham was not the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party in that House. If the hon. Gentleman satisfied the First Commissioner of Works of that he (Lord Balcarres) presumed the First Commissioner would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give up his room. The hon. Member for Durham said that when Lord Hartington was Leader of the Party he had no room. He (Lord Balcarres) was not in the House at the time, but if Lord Hartington had no room in those days neither had the Welsh Liberal Party nor the Irish Nationalist Party. The fact that a room had been
  964
  allotted to the use of the right hon. Gentleman seemed scarcely to justify the amount of discussion it had already involved. The use of a very dark room in a very detached part of the House did not call for serious or prolonged consideration. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green had asked if they could not draw off the gas fumes in the tea-rooms. His reply to that was that they were expending money in ventilation, which it was hoped would supply a remedy for the evil. The hon. Member for the Totnes Division had asked for an improvement to be made in the closing of the outer and inner doors with a view to adding to the comfort and convenience of hon. Members awaiting a division, and had stated that no structural alterations were necessary to effect-that object. They, however, could not undertake to alter the arrangement for divisions without first obtaining the consent of the House.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENcalled attention to the necessity for a room to which hon. Members could be taken in cases of illness. He believed that the House possessed a medicine chest which was never opened. Further, he thought there should be a medical "gentleman who could be called upon in cases of necessity. An arrangement might be made under which, by granting a sum of money to Westminster Hospital, they could by pressing an electric button obtain the services of a doctor at a moment's notice. He trusted that attention would be given to the necessity for a separate room, suitable appliances, and tin prompt services of a medical man to deal with sudden casses of illness.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked whether it would not be possible to avoid discussions year after year upon the accommodation of the House. They had devoted the greater part of that sitting to debating matters which, although a concern to hon. Members individually, were of the smallest interest to the country. He advocated the appointment of a Standing Committee, like the Kitchen Committee, who could act in co-operation with the First Commissioner of Works and deal with complaints and suggestions.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid although he was afraid that he could not accede to the suggestion of the lion. Member to set aside a room for unfortunate incidents that occurred at rare intervals he was authorised by the Serjeant-at-Arms to say that his room was available at all times of the day and night for the reception of anyone who might become suddenly ill. With regard to the question
  of telephonic communication with Westminster Hospital he had consulted with his noble friend the First Commissioner of Works, and he hoped it would be possible to have telephonic communication with the hospital shortly.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 202. (Division List No. 149.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that for the good of Parliament itself, and on the principle of equality between Member and Member he wished to find out distinctly why a private room had been given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who had no right to preferential treatment above other private Members. The right hon. Gentleman, with his retiring disposition, would be
  968
  the very first to deprecate any compliment being paid to himself at the expense of his fellow Members. If he wanted a room could he not go into the room of his son the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or conduct his correspondence in the rooms of the five or six Ministers who owed their appointment to his influence? Was this special treatment accorded because he was leader of the tariff reform movement? The late Mr. Gladstone once said that between private

  969
  Member and private Member there should be no distinction in Parliament, and that he would not belong to a House of Commons in which any such distinction was made. There were too many leaders in the House of Commons and too many who wished to be leaders. He charged the Government with having favoured the right hon. Gentleman because they "were afraid of the scheme-maker and the Cabinet-maker. Other Members were more entitled to a room than he. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, Chairman of the Private Bills Committee, was sc entitled, and so, too, was the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, who did the "blocking" for the Government. The right hon. Gentleman was the leader, not of a Party, but of a caucus which met in George Street, and as such had no right to any preferential treatment. He would be quite prepared to leave the question to a Gentleman well versed in the proprieties of the House of Commons: did the hon. Member for King's Lynn think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was entitled to a private room in the House?
  MR. DALZIELcomplained that the Kitchen Committee were being treated with discourtesy, and, indeed, contempt, by the authorities of the House of Lords. For some months they had been trying to arrange for the use of the House of Lords Committee room, next the present dining-room, in exchange for a House of Commons Committee room, but they had not been able to obtain any reply beyond an acknowledgment of their communication and a promise to consider the matter. The person responsible seemed to be the Lord Great Chamberlain, who he considered was not very worthy of his imposing title, or he would not treat.a Committee representing and elected by the House of Commons with such a lack of respect. He hoped the noble Lord, if he had any influence in that direction, would endeavour to induce the Lord Great Chamberlain to give a reply one way or the other, so that the Kitchen Committee should not go on wasting their time with fruitless meetings.
  MR. WHITLEYdrew attention to an item of £10,000 for the
  970
  purchase of a house in Abingdon Street, and asked for what purpose the house was to be used.
  LORD BALCARRESreferred the hon. Member to his reply to a Question on the subject three or four weeks ago. For the £10,000 the Office of Works would obtain the existing house, which the London County Council had recently acquired under its Westminster improvement scheme. The bargain was fair to both parties. It would enable the County Council to carry out a very important road improvement, and at the same time complete a valuable block of Government property.
  MR. WHITLEY: But what will the house be used for?
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the First Commissioner had not settled what it would be used for as the house was to be demolished to widen the street.
  MR. WHITLEY: Why buy the house if it is to be demolished?
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the front of the house was required for the street-widening, and therefore it was necessary to demolish the house. In the matter raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs his position was one of some delicacy. The room in question was vested in the Lord Great Chamberlain, over whom the Office of Works had no control whatever. He would take care, however, that the representations of the hon Member were duly laid before the First Commissioner of Works.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the explanation of the noble Lord with regard to the purchase of the house in Abingdon Street required to be either seriously considered or materially supplemented. The £10,000 was to be paid for a building which apparently was not to be applied to any Parliamentary purpose whatever. Why, then, did the money appear on this Vote at all? If it was to be used for public offices it should come in come other Vote. There was a Vote for each public building and for miscellaneous buildings, and this sum should appear in one of those. He did

  971
  not quite understand why they were asked to contribute at all in this matter. It was purely a question for the London County Council, which had proved itself quite competent to carry out other public improvements. He did not comprehend the reason for the introduction of a Vote in this House upon this matter, because this building did not come under the Houses of Parliament. Would the noble Lord tell them what on earth this had to do with the Houses of Parliament? If he knew to what purpose this property was to be appropriated then he would know to what Vote it belonged. Could the noble Lord tell them that this building was to be appropriated to some purpose belonging to the Houses of Parliament? If he could not do so, then he could not see why this £10,000 was in this Vote at all.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he had had no notice of this Question, otherwise he would have been able to give a fuller Answer. He had been asked why this sum had not been included in miscellaneous buildings. The reason was that this building came within the Palace of Westminster, and therefore it was put in with the Houses of Parliament buildings. The Government had yet to settle whether this site should be used for erecting a fresh block of Government offices, or whether it should be preserved as an open space. He should be glad on a future occasion to give any further information of a detailed character, but at the moment he was only able to give the general facts.
  MR. LAWRENCEdrew attention to the unnecessary lighting of the electric lights in the various corridors and lobbies. He noticed on days when the sun was shining that these lights were on, and they had been fixed here and there in places where they were not required.
  MR. DELANY: I think, Mr. Deputy-Chairman if we had a little more light now it would do no harm.
  2. £36,500, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he noticed that Item D showed an increase. He wished, to draw attention to the increase in this item in order to see whether a limit could not be put to this expenditure. Two years ago it amounted to £7,000; the next year to £8,000, and this year it had increased to £10,000 for new works, alterations, and additions. This was in addition to the large sums spent at the time of the accession of His Majesty for improving Buckingham Palace and other palaces in the occupation of His Majesty. He did not think they ought to have this annual increase in this particular item. Then there was Item E., which amounted to £38,180, and this showed a slight reduction upon last year, but, nevertheless, it remained at a higher figure than it stood at four years ago. He thought there was room for a substantial amount of economy upon this Vote. He also noticed that certain particulars had been withdrawn during the last three years.. He alluded to the details of Item A in regard to salaries, wages, and allowances. Why had they been withheld? It had not been done by the authority of the House, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to answer that Question.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he should be happy to give the precise details under the six headings which formed Item A. He did not think the hon. Member was correct in saying that the information had been withheld. He could give the hon. Member any particular items if he would mention which he required. As to the alterations and additions there had been a small increase, but objection had not been taken by the hon. Member for Halifax to any particular item. The two largest items which had caused this-increase were electric lighting at St.. James's Palace and electric lighting at Hampton Court. The safety of thoes great historical monuments were better secured by a system of electric lighting. He thought these increases were well worthy of acceptance by the Committee, and they were doing their best to prevent any extravagance.
  COLONEL WELBYasked if there was any intention on the part of the Board of Works to do anything to bring the facade of Buckingham Palace into

  973
  harmony with the Memorial to Queen Victoria. The more that Memorial grew the grander it became, and the more it seemed out of keeping with the front of the Palace. No mere renovation or repainting of the front would do; they wanted a great scheme for a new front in order to bring it into harmony with the Memorial. He wished to know whether that alteration would come within the scope of the Memorial or would it have to be done at some future time.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that was a question which, as the hon. Gentleman must see, must stand over in the meantime.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, for Expenditure in respect of Osborne."
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that two years ago this Vote was lumped in with the preceeding one. That was a form of the accounts which he hoped would not be maintained. In the first place he objected to this Vote on the ground that it was not properly a Civil Service Estimate. He understood that Osborne House was used as a convalescent home for member's of His Majesty's forces. He thought, therefore, that the cost ought to be borne by the Army and Navy funds and not the Civil Service Estimates. He asked what was the number of patients during the year who had obtained benefit from this expenditure, and what was the average number who had been in the convalescent home. The expense seemed to be rather heavy. He thought the Committee ought to have something in the nature of an annual Report, or even a footnote on the Estimates, giving such particulars as would justify this demand for money. The details showed that there was a house governor who received £360 this year, The same item last year was £400, and at footnote explained that this officer's
  974
  salary was subject to a deduction of 10 per cent, as he was in receipt of retired pay from the Admiralty. That raised the question of the re-employment of persons who were retired on handsome pensions voted by the House. The pensions of well-paid officers amounted to two-thirds of their salaries, if they had served their full time, and yet there were continual cases of the re-employment of such men at salaries which doubled their pensions. What pay did this person receive in addition to the £360 on the Vote? He thought men who were in receipt of very small pensions, ranging from £6 to £25 a year, should be encouraged to apply for these posts. He supposed he was correct in assuming that the house governor had a free residence, coal, and gas, in addition to the amount that appeared for salary. He asked the noble Lord to state also what the arrangements were as to the payment of fees by the officers who took advantage of this institution. Did they pay anything in addition to the item that appeared in the appropriation-in-aid of 2s. 6d. par day? Was that charge always collected from the patients, or did it depend upon the rank of the person concerned?
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Member had raised a point which was discussed last year as to whether the Vote for Osborne House should appear on the Civil Service Estimates. Certainly there were services provided there from which the Army and Navy drew advantage, but the question raised had been carefully considered. It should be remembered that a large part of Osborne was of the nature now of a public museum which was visited by many thousands of the public. That he thought, was sufficient to justify its place on the Civil Service Estimates. Last year there were 255 admissions to the home, and the average number there was thirty-five. The gross total required was £16,700, from which the appropriation-in-aid and fees paid, amounting to £1,800, was deducted. But there was a considerable income from the Osborne Estate which was credited to the Woods and Forests Department, and he dared say there was an annual sum from the cadet college on the estate which might be credited against the outlay under this Vote. He

  975
  believed, too, that many of the officers, owing to the exceptional advantages of the situation, completely recovered from their illnesses, which seemed to him in the nature of an economy. He thought it would be found that the expense of Osborne was very moderate indeed.
  DR. HUTCHINSONsaid the cost per bed was £600.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked whether the money on this Vote included anything for the college.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid it did not.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if the average number of patients was thirty-five, £600 per bed seemed to be a large expenditure. That seemed to him a most extraordinary sum, and he believed a case had been made out for the most careful inquiry.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that although he had stated that that was the total expense of the hospital and convalescent home, the hon. Member must understand Osborne House was to all intents and purposes a great public museum, visited by thousands of the public. All of this had to be kept up, and there was a large collection of works of art, formed by Her late Majesty. This and the parks and gardens were open to the public, and were entirely included in the expenditure mentioned.
  MR. BRIGHTasked whether it was possible to dissect the different expenditure on the different sections of Osborne. He had been a director of an hospital and he knew that the average cost of each bed was only £60 or £70 per annum.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was a museum which cost a certain amount of expenditure and gave great pleasure to a considerable number of people. Then there was a convalescent hospital in respect of which they were asked to vote a large sum. Thirdly, there was the Admiralty cadet training college; and, fourthly, there were the apartments for which the noble Lord said the Department of Woods and Forests were re-
  976
  sponsible. It seemed to him that this was an extraordinary method of keeping account. The noble Lord said that a certain amount of revenue was derived by the Department of Woods and Forests for Osborne, but could he say what it amounted to? No, the noble Lord could not. He could see no reason why that should not be an appropriation-in-aid. Again, why was there no mention here of the additional sum of £20,500 asked for by the Admiralty for the training of cadets? The Osborne Estate was apparently under four different managements, which seemed to him a very bad arrangement, but he understood that the Chief Commissioner of Works was supreme. The arrangement was a very bad one and did not lend itself to efficient and responsible administration.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that the Committee were asked to vote £14,900 for a convalescent home at Osborne, but now they were told that whilst the Vote excluded the expense of the cadet training college, it included certain works, and the museum. The Committee should be informed how much of the Vote was to be appropriated to each purpose. It was absurd to say that a sum of £14,000 was required to support thirty-five beds in the convalescent home. The extravagance of the expenditure upon this object would be obvious when it was pointed out that the cost worked out at about £10 per patient p r week, whereas the cost of properly maintaining a convalescent home ought not to amount to more than 15s. a head weekly. He was conversant with homes where the cost did not exceed that sum and the number of berths were less than thirty-five. The matter called for some further explanation.
  MR. BRIGGthought the solution might be found in the number of Departments that had to do with the subject and the number of people for whom occupation had to be found. He drew the noble Lord's attention to an item of £1,460 in respect of receipts from patients, and asked whether it was a condition that the patients should pay 2s. 6d. each per day, or whether and by whom the payments were made on their behalf.
  MR. WHITLEYnoticed that there were 4,000 acres of land in connection with the hospital and inquired what use was made of it. The management of the whole thing showed a state of muddle. There were at least four and possibly more divergent interests dealing with the estate, and there was certainly a very small result for a very great cost. They were entitled to ask that there should be some new method adopted in dealing with the matter. It was true that the Vote was not so large this year, but last year there were charges for alterations and extensions, and as a protest against an increased permanent charge he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £7,800, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Member had asserted that a state of muddle had arisen because there were four divergent interests. Did the hon. Gentleman think the muddle would disappear if the estate were put under four Departments instead of one. The whole control was with the Office of Works. A portion of the estate was handed over for the purposes of a naval hospital. That would be included in a Vote on the Navy Estimates over which they had no control, whilst the Admiralty had nothing to do with the other part of the estate except so far as they were interested in the hospital patients who spent their period of convalescence there.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether the position of Osborne House was in any way analogous to the college at Dartmouth.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not know anything regarding the College at Dartmouth. Osborne House was the residence of the late Queen, and was handed over by His Majesty the King to the nation for the purpose of a convalescent home. It was one building; it could not be separated by wings for naval or military purposes, and it was unusual to bring in the name of the Sovereign in discussions of that nature. As, however, Osborne House contained
  978
  private property, it seemed advisable that a portion of it should be kept absolutely private. For that reason the public was admitted only to one part—the museum. The whole control of Osborne House Museum—the portion to which the public were admitted—of the private apartments of Her late Majesty, and of the Naval and Military Convalescent Home was locally and directly under the house governor, and Departmentally, under the First Commissioner. The medical control was under the consulting surgeon and physician, who resided in the Isle of Wight, and there was also what was called the medical consultative staff (unpaid), who paid regular visits to the convalescent home. The officers, who were sent to the home on the recommendation respectively of the Admiralty and the War Office, paid 2s. 6d. a day. In this they were simply following the arrangement which already existed at Netley and other hospitals.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £02,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to what he described as the "absolute and wanton defacement" of the Green Park by the construction across it of a hard broad road 60 feet wide, which was supposed to be reserved for pedestrians, but which bore all the marks of an intended permanent road for vehicular traffic. He could conceive no reason for this road, for the making of which trees had been cut down, and no less than two acres of grass had been removed. It was a wasteful expenditure even if it were for the use of vehicular traffic, for which it was not required What was wanted in London parks was not broad have granite, asphalte or wooden roads but trees and grass, and trees had been cut down and grass removed from this road and no reason

  979
  had been given for such an extraordinary proceeding. The major part of the cost of construction—namely, a sum of £4,000, had been defrayed out of a fund raised for the unemployed in London, and he would suggest, if it was really desired to employ the unemployed, that they should be engaged to restore this part of the park to its original state. A six-foot path would have amply supplied the wants of all the people who were ever likely to use the road, and he could not conceive what the purpose of it was unless it was to form a sort of vista to the Memorial to be erected to Her late Majesty. Whatever the object might be with which the road had been made, he denounced it as a gross outrage on the part of the First Commissioner of Works, who had defaced and practically spoiled the most precious park in London. If the noble Lord could say there was likely to be a vast amount of traffic over the path, or to at it led from tome where to some where, or that it had any quality to recommend it, or that in his opinion it was really an improvement, he would have nothing further to say. His conviction, however, was that the noble Lord himself must have regretted the defacement to the Green Park, and he seriously commended his suggestion that the unemployed should be again used, if necessary at the cost of another £4,000, to restore the path to its original condition.
  SIR A. HAYTERagreed with the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the hideousness of this so-called improvement. He could not understand why so enormous a quantity of turf had been cut from both sides of the road. The foundations of the pathway rendered it unsuitable for vehicular traffic, there being no solid granite blocks for a foundation, but if it was intended merely for a footpath, why had it been mode of such enormous width? He was extremely sorry the park had been destroyed for the sake of a path.
  LORD BALCARRBSsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn did not appreciate the situation. This pathway was not for the purpose of a thorough-fare across the Green Park. It had been planted with three rows of trees on either
  980
  side and was an integral part of the Memorial. In the course of time it would form a fine avenue with rows of trees leading from a great thoroughfare to a grand memorial, analogous in many respects to the Broad Walk at Kensington. Kensington Gardens and Hampton Court Park were laid out in avenues of trees, not merely to provide roadways, but to make fine vistas, and this pathway would in time make a fine vista. There was no intention of using the pathway for carriage traffic; as the hon. Baronet opposite had stated, the foundations rendered it unsuitable for that purpose. Eighteen months ago hon. Members declared that St. James's Park was being spoilt by the making of the pathway which was now universally recognised to be a great improvement, and he believed a similar result would be achieved in the present case. He did not admit that anything like 400 trees had been cut down. The grass area in St. James's Park to-day was larger than before the improvement was made.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYreminded the noble Lord that there were such things as avenues with grass between the trees which were very beautiful. The Long Walk at Windsor was such an one. In any case a path fifteen feet wide would have been ample for all purposes.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether in the appointment of park-keepers the claims of old soldiers and sailors were considered. One of the obstacles to recruiting was the great difficulty experienced by old soldiers in obtaining employment, and he hoped the First Commissioner would not lose sight of the formally expressed desire of the House of Commons that old soldiers and sailors should be appointed to these posts. He congratulated the Board of Works upon the great improvement which had taken place in recent years in the parks, which were now as beautiful as those in any capital in Europe.
  MR. CREMERsaid he wished to draw attention to-the contacts for refreshment in the kiosks in the parks, and also to the supply of

  981
  chairs and free seats. Ten or twelve years ago when this question of seats was raised in the House they were told by the then First Commissioner of Works that no rent was paid by the contractor to the State. Since that time the First commissioner of Works had been somewhat severely heckled on the subject, and the year following that heckling there appeared in the accounts an item of £1,000 paid by the contractors for the right of putting seats in the parks; so that it was quite clear that the First Commissioner of Works had been deluded by someone, and he had frankly admitted his mistake. Subsequently the sum of £2,000 was put down as the rent received from the contractor, who now had the right to put the chairs in Hyde Park. Anyone who had visited Hyde Park on Sunday must have noticed the enormous crowds there, and in his opinion £2,001 was a very small sum to be paid for the right of putting chairs in the parks. The First Commissioner of Works told him twelve months ago that he had come to the conclusion that when the present contract expired there ought to be a much larger sum paid into the coffers of the State by the man who was allowed to put those seats in the parks. Not only was the State being defrauded by the insufficient sum that was paid, but the number of free seats in the parks was year by year diminishing, while the number of paid seats was increasing. He wished to know whether a new contract had been entered into, and if so, had the rental from the new contractor for the seats been increased? He also wished to know if tenders had been invited. The last Commissioner of Works had contemplated purchasing the chairs, and, had this been done, then the whole of the money received would have gone into the Exchequer. He thought a very considerable sum of money would have been realised in that way.
  He noticed that with regard to the supply of refreshments in the parks, there was an item of £1,000 for the purchase and repair of refreshment kiosks in Regent's Park. He wished to know if any rent was received for the use of those kiosks by the refreshment contractors, and were they obliged to give any guarantee to redeem the promise they made to supply' the public with whole-
  982
  some refreshments at a very moderate price. He had raised before in the-House the question of the character of the refreshments supplied, and he was by no means satisfied that even at the present time they were of as good a quality as they might be, and they might also be supplied at a cheaper rate. If the Government erected these kiosks and received rent for them, he wished to know who determined the amount of rent. Some of the contractors had written asking for an interview with him in order to explain the circumstances under which they supplied refreshments, but he thought that was an abominable practice, and he trusted the refreshment contractors would take warning and not renew those invitations to anyone who happened to complain of the price and quality of their refreshments.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid he desired to have an explanation in regard to an incident which took place last winter when most hon. Members were out of town. He alluded to the two old ladies whose stall was removed from St. James's Park. He did not know what their rights were, but it was stated in the Press, that these old ladies were evicted from their stall in a manner quite unknown in this country, although it might be customary enough in Ireland. They were only reinstated in the position which they now held by the intervention of a power whose name could not be mentioned in the debates in that House. A. great deal was said in the public Press on the matter, and he thought the noble Lord should explain authoritatively what was done.
  MR. MOONEYsaid the trade which was now being conducted by the two old ladies was absolutely different from that which they carried on before. This gave one the impression that the old ladies were being exploited by some refreshment caterer who was doing an illegitimate trade there to the detriment of the traders in the locality.
  LORD BALCARRES, replying to the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, said that

  983
  the park attendants appointed during the last two years had been retired soldiers and sailors. The hon. Member for Haggerston had asked about the chair rents The sum of £1000 was paid by the man who held the contract. The contract would expire at the end of the present year, and, no doubt, during the summer or autumn the whole question would have to be reconsidered. The hon. Member had been misinformed as to the number of free seats. There were between 600 and 700, and the number had not been diminished in Hyde Park.
  MR. CREMERsaid he had known the parks for forty years, and he had noticed that the free seats had been gradually diminishing in number.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the free seats were moved about from time to time, but the total number was not only not smaller, but rather larger. As to Regent's Park, the New Works Vote contained an item of £1,000 for the purpose of buying up the central kiosk. Hitherto the rent received by the Office of Works had been £4 a year. That arrangement was now coming to an end. They hoped to obtain under the new arrangement £250, after the outlay of the £1,000 which had been sanctioned by the Treasury. At to the two old ladies referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, he had really little to say. There were, in the old days, a large number of establishments similar to that formerly held by these ladies. They existed pretty well all over the parks. Notice was given a good many years ago to the persons who occupied similar places, and they recognised that they had no title or status. They received small compensation to give up their tenure. In this case, as hon. Members knew, there had been a great deal of newspaper discussion, in which there had been much exaggeration. The right of occupation, being terminable, had expired, and there was some kind of informal tenancy. As the right hon. Gentleman Lad said, another place was substituted further down on the Horse Guards Parade. The tenure on which the two old ladies occupied the kiosk was terminable at the decease of one or both. It was not desirable,
  984
  as hon. Members would agree, that such a tenancy should be allowed to become a freehold. It was not in the interest of the Crown, the public, or the Department, that they should countenance any claim for freehold in respect of such occupation. With regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Dublin County he hoped the statement made was not well-founded, but, of course, it was a matter upon which inquiry ought to be made.
  MR. CREMERasked whether the same rule that was to be applied in regard to the kiosk in Regent's Park would be applied to the kiosk in Kew Gardens, and to similar establishments where they existed in other parks. He could not find that any rent was recorded for the kiosk in Kew Gardens, where an enormous business was done.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid a rent was recorded. Some of the kiosks were very old. As in the case of the Regent's Park kiosk, whenever the present tenures expired the opportunity would be taken of increasing the rents and improving the services.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was sure the public appreciated the extension of Richmond Park made by His Majesty through the removal of the railing round the enclosure. The finance, however, showed an increase from £3,000 to £5,000. Certain offices were to be abolished and certain new ones created.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING (ORDER No. 10) (EDUCATION ACT, 1902. BOROUGH OF EAST HAM)
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid the importance of the question which he had to bring before the notice of the House would not be doubted.

  985
  For the first time in the course of municipal government in modern times a large local authority was found unanimously and emphatically declaring that it would no longer continue to discharge its statutory obligations, not from any dislike of them, but because of its inability to meet the consequent financial charges. The result of the action of the local authority of East Ham was that thousands of children were to be turned into the streets and hundreds of teachers and other officials were to be dismissed. The whole work of popular education was to be brought to a standstill. That incident in itself would make this question important; but it did not stand alone; and the fact that it was typical of a disposition prevailing throughout a large area, made it assume position of considerable magnitude. Nor would the undoubted urgency of the question be contested. Unless some modus vivendi could be found within the next few weeks, there would be 23,000 children at the close of this month without school accommodation in East Ham. Seven hundred officials had received notice to quit their employment and they must find their livelihood elsewhere. This must not be taken to be the view of one set of councillors alone, either, because it was no exaggeration to say that several local authorities representing probably a population of 2,000,000 at least were watching anxiously for the comment of the Prime Minister in order themselves to decide what action they would take in the near future.
  On April 18th last the council of the municipal borough of East Ham had before it the materially increased demand of 9d. in the rate for educational purposes. Three new schools were wanted, and in that district such was the value of rateable property and such the population, that from 2d. to 3d. in the £ would be required to build a single school. Confronted with this burden, which they could not support, they at once resolved not to continue to administer the Act of 1902 and instructed the education committee to bring their work under the Act to a conclusion. Admitting the temptation and the irritation under which they acted, and sympathising very fully indeed with the object they had in view, he could not t express approval of a method so uncon-
  986
  stitutional as that which they had adopted. Although not connected with the borough of East Ham, but representing the neighbouring one of West Ham, he felt himself bound to take the action he now took, because for nine years past he had been very closely associated with this question. In 1896, when the heavily-rated districts applied to Parliament for relief, he, with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, forced the matter on the attention of Parliament and did something to secure the bringing about of the Necessitous School Boards Act. Both the right hon. Baronet and himself recognised at the time that that Act could not fulfil the legitimate desires of the ratepayers of those districts, and they did not allow the question to be pushed aside, but did their best to keep it before the House. With the Education Act of 1902 the burdens of those districts became greater, and since then, particularly during the last five months, he had been engaged in attempting to bring this subject before the House. Therefore, although, as he had said, he could not approve of the action East Ham had taken, yet having been so long associated with the question he had thought it his duty to bring this subject to the notice of the House at the earliest opportunity.
  The two once tiny villages of West Ham and East Ham had become within the last thirty years densely-populated areas, dormitories and nurseries of London. The population of the borough he had the honour to represent had grewn in that time from 30,000 to nearly 300,000, and if that one fact were kept in recollection four-fifths of the present position was explained. In the same period East Ham had attained a population of 117,000. During the life time of Colonel Makin, who used to represent that part of Essex in the House, the electorate had risen from 8,000 to 148,000. Land which thirty years ago was a marsh was now inhabited by 500,000 people;. It had been said that it would have well repaid the West Ham Borough Council to purchase every plot of waste land within its area and make it waste land for ever to prevent any tenement being built upon it, as it was impossible to erect on land within that area tenements of sufficient value to pay for their upkeep municipally. Another

  987
  fact to remember was that all the necessities of civilisation had had to be met in thirty years. With the exception of a few ten years loans, every single loan contracted during the last thirty years was still outstanding, and their capital charges were consequently heavy. Until all these debts were paid off these districts would be in the particular difficulty which he was endeavouring to explain to the House. Protests had been made against the time allowed by the Local Government Board for the repayment of these loans as being far too short, and that was one of the things which affected East Ham at this moment, because whereas the Board of Education gave fifty years as the period in which loans for school buildings should be repaid, the Local Government Board restricted the term to twenty-eight years. With a population of 117,000 East Ham had a rateable value of only £468,000, and the net produce of a penny rate on the Poor Law a assessment was only £1,754. They had to provide accommodation for 25,000 scholars. While throughout England and Wales the general rule was to provide for one-sixth of the population, in towns like East and West Ham it was necessary to provide for a much larger proportion. So far as the provision of secondary education was concerned they had been able to do very little, although every penny of the so-called whisky money had teen spent on building and maintaining in West Ham and East Ham respectively two of the finest technical institutes that were to be found in the country. They had therefore never failed in their duty. The difficulty was that they had this large percentage of children to accommodate.
  The elementary education rate, under these conditions, during the last half-year reached an amount equal to 2s. 9d. in the £ for the year. He did not think anybody in the district believed 1hat this position would have been avoided had the Education Act of 1902 not been passed, but it was possible that it had come earlier than it would have done had that Act not been passed. Trouble would have arisen under the old conditions with absolute certainty, for the burden entailed by taking over the voluntary schools in the district was but
  988
  slight, the average attendance in voluntary schools at that moment being less than 700. He understood that in the borough of East Ham a rate of 10d. in the £ was absorbed in meeting capital charges, and in the adjoining borough no less than Is. Id. in the £ had to be taken before a single penny of the rate went to educational maintenance. One might take it that the general position of West Ham was very similar. In, had a large child population, small capital value, and the whole of its capital charges still outstanding, hence much of the present evil. Those who in-habited better-favoured districts could not comprehend the sense of injustice which was deep-rooted throughout these areas. People looked round the country and saw that of administrative counties as local authorities under the Act of 1902 there were only five where the rate for educational purposes reached Is. and not one where it touched 2s. Of the county I boroughs forty-seven had a rate exceeding Is., and one, West Ham, a rate exceeding 2s. In that borough the rate for last year was 2s. 8 ½d. and they had just decided to levy a rate for the half-year which, if spread over twelve months, equalled a rate for educational purposes; alone of 2s. Hid. There were forty-five non-county boroughs which had reached a rate of Is., and one, East Ham, had; reached nearly 3s. In thirty-four urban districts the rate had reached Is. and in four of these it had reached 2s. Of county boroughs they had Bournemouth with a rate of 5½d., and West Ham, 2s. 5d.; of non-county boroughs, Grantham with 4d., and East Ham, 3s.; of urban districts, Wimbledon with 5d., and Walthamstow with 2s. 5d. Was it reasonable to suppose that the inhabitants of these districts, their representatives and their local councillors, would not protest against an inequality of this character? There was much to be said for those who under such a sense of injustice took a step which perhaps was not fully justifiable.
  He would probably be-told that the extravagance of the local authority was the cause. To was easy for those who represented districts of largo rateable values, where a great proportion of the schools were provided by charitable people without any contribution from the ratepayers,

  989
  to say that this was the result of extravagance. But if they had been extravagant that extravagance had been condoned by the Board of Education. Who set the standard of efficiency? Whitehall! Had they been extravagant in teachers' salaries or in the purchase of sites? Let them he compared with London, Manchester, or Birmingham. Was the extravagance in other matters? The general district rate last half-year in East Ham was only 1s. 11d. in the pound. If the local authority were extravagant, it must by with the money of the artisan and tradesman—that was, at their own expense—and who, indeed, with a total rate of 10s. or? 11s. in the pound, would embark on any expenditure that could possibly be avoided? He could understand extravagant expenditure when the rates were low, but for the last thirteen years there had not been a municipal contest in the borough of West Ham where the question of the reduction of the rates was not prominent. It could not be said that the local authority had been extravagant in building schools, unless it was extravagant To provide buildings which were comfortable, sanitary, and suitable.
  He had dealt pretty largely with the causes which had led up to the present position in West Ham and East Ham—but in boroughs like Walthamstow Tottenham, towns in the West Biding of Yorkshire and in South Wales—places which were not the overflow of large cities, but which stood quite alone and had grown up round large mines or other manufacturing industries, where there was a large population and a low rateable value, similar trouble existed. In his judgment, the Act of 1902 did not bring about this evil. How far did it affect the position? In 1897 the Government passed the Act popularly known as the Necessitous School Boards Act. The amount of the aid grant given under that Act depended on three factors—the rateable property in the districts; the child population; and the amount of the rate that had to be levied in order to meet capital charges. That Act was re-healed by Section 10 of the Act of 1902. He was the only man in the House who moved that that Act should be retained, and he protested against the change. But Parliament was too busy over sec-
  990
  tarian squabbles to take into serious consideration the financial^ question. And what was the consequence? There were some districts which with a rate of 2s. in 1897 were declared necessitous and received a considerable subvention. Those districts now, with a rate of 3s., actually received less money under Section 10 than they would have received had the Act-of 1897 remained in force. The Act of 1902 only expedited the position.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It expedited many positions.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that the trouble would have arisen under the old Act, bit arose somewhat earlier owing to the change which had since been made. The old Act took account of three factors in fixing the amount of aid granted, but Section 10 of the later Act omitted one of those factors—the amount of rate which ha I to b3 levied in order to meet capital charges. He remembered the First Lord of the Treasury saying—
  "We are about to give 4s. in respect to every child, and the remainder of the sum will be distributed in proportion to the poverty of the district. The greater the poverty the greater the grant."
  He was perfectly convinced that that was the belief and full intention of the right hon. Gentleman. He might be allowed to say that he had had many conversations with the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject during the past nine years, and had found nothing but the utmost sympathy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman with the heavily rated districts. It would be churlish on his part were he not to acknowledge that, even though it might not be credited in some quarters. In West Ham, according to the borough treasurer, the amount received under Section 10 on an average attendance of 51,000 for the year ended March, 1905, was £25,504 10s., as against £27,577 accruing on the same average attendance under the Act of 1897. At East Ham there was a loss of between £200 and £300 this year. In West Ham and in East Ham they had always loyally accepted the Education Act of 1902 and had carried it out smoothly. The only obstacle in both boroughs to its successful working was the disinclination on the

  991
  part of the ratepayers to find the funds—not because they had a dislike to education in itself, but they felt that that which was an Imperial necessity should be made an Imperial charge, and that the localratepayers oughtnot to be railed upon to bear the whole of the burden. He hoped the Government would not have recourse to a mandamus against the council. The proper remedy was to restore the Act of 1897 with a more liberal scale, without disturbing Section 10 of the Act of 1902. There should be a sliding scale of grants which should expand as local necessity increased and contract again as that necessity expired. On behalf of East Ham and of his own county borough, he appealed to the Government, not for charity, but for justice. -He would close with the words used by the Prime Minister in connection with the Aliens Bill, that that which was a national benefit ought to be a national burden. That was the case with education. In his opinion it would only be a fair thing to provide that a larger share of the cost of education in this country should be thrown on the National Treasury.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that, in seconding the Resolution move by the hon. Member for West Ham, he wished to point out that there was nothing of greater importance than the question of the administration of the Education Act of 1902 in the poorer districts of the country. He thought it must be clear to every one who had listened to the speech of the hon. Member that whatever good will these might be in such a district as East Ham, the financial conditions at present were so onerous that, unless some relief was given by the Government, it was hardly to be expected that the local education authority could fulfil its educational duties. He would say at the outset that he realised the extreme difficulty of the position. He thought that everyone on both sides of the House was anxious to put education on the best possible footing, so far as administration was concerned. There was no question here of sectarian animosity on which the two sides of the House should be divided. It was undoubtedly true that in poor dis-
  992
  tricts like East Ham the burden of education was felt in a very special manner. He did not say that East Ham was the worst instance; he thought that the ratepayers in all districts had at present great reason to complain of the enormously heavy burden which education was throwing on them. That was a very bad policy from the point of view of education. One of the first steps to be taken should be to make such a reapportionment of the burden of education in this country thatthepeople in various localities who were doing their best to provide the most efficient system of education might feel that they were fairly treated with regard to expenditure, and that as far as possible the burden was put on a fair and equitable basis. He did not rise as an apologist for the local authority in East Ham. It was a mistake to allow a dislike to an Act of Parliament or a sense of injustice to be brought forward as an excuse for the local authority not carrying out the duty imposed upon it by the House. The Education Act in its main provisions undoubtedly had been a great educational reform, and it was lamentable, whatever the cause, that certain local authorities, owing to their dislike of the law, should refuse to obey it.
  MR. DILLON: What you think of the Coercion Act?
  R. CRIPPSsaid all Acts of Parliament which were effective, and which had to be administered, of course imposed certain obligations on the administering bodies. That was a truism. It was a serious question, however, if the local authorities, on whom they had always relied for carrying out the law, instead of taking such measures to get the law which they disliked altered or repealed, refused to administer it, which as loyal subjects they ought to do.
  MR. DILLON: Why do you encourage them by seconding this Motion?
  MR, CRIPPSsaid that if a private individual had a conscientious objection to certain provisions of the law and wished to emphasise that objection by enduring the penalties for breach of the law, by all means let him do so. But a local authority was in a very different position

  993
  from an individual, for it was part of the governing machinery of the country. Whatever the difficulty might be in carrying out an Act of this kind, he hoped the East Ham local authority, having made their protest, and as he hoped having got some promise from the Government with regard to the burden of which they legitimately complained, would in future administer this Act.
  As to the cause of the discontent in East Ham, he was in thorough sympathy with it. Nothing could be more harmful than placing an undue burden on the ratepayers in a particular locality. If a reform was to be carried out fairly and efficiently, the first step was to see, if possible, that the burden should be so equitably distributed that no individual person should have a sense of unfairness being dealt out to him. What was the condition as regarded East Ham? The ratepayer there found that the burden was five or six times as much as it was in some other localities which were carrying out the same duties. He believed that the Act of 1902 was passed with the intention of not taking away from necessitous districts the grants which they got under the Act of 1897. The Prime Minister stated more than once that the Act would not distribute the burden in the future to the disadvantage of the necessitous districts. But no one could foretell exactly how a scheme of this kind would operate, and now they knew that it was to the distinct disadvantage of these poorer districts, he thought they were entitled to ask that those districts should be put in as fair a position as they were in before the Act was passed. They were dealing here, too, not with a local burden in the ordinal y sense, but with a national service—that of education; and, if in a particular locality, such as East Ham, the burden was so extreme, ought not the national character of education to be further recognised, and ought not further S rate assistance to be given? Nothing could be more extravagant for the ratepayers than our present system with regard to the incidence of the burden of national education. He should entirely agree that where the ratepayer contributed he ought to have
  994
  control. As long as the level of education was determined by one body, which, he thought, ought to be the Board of Education, and the funds had to be found by another body which had no control over it, and, he thought, ought not to have, they would have a wasteful system, and one not in accord with fair and equitable principle.
  Now, was it wonderful that, under I these circumstances, friction had arisen in the poorer districts like East Ham? Speaking from the point of view of an educationist, who wanted education in this country to be raised to the highest possible level, it was the greatest mistake to impose an unfair burden on the ratepayers. A large amount of property escaped contribution to the rates, and it was only fair that all wealth should bear a share of the national burden in providing a system of national education. Although no one could justify local authorities in refusing to carry out their duties, yet in asking the Government to enforce those duties he would first ask what were the causes of discontent, and if they were well founded he thought it was part of the duty of the Government to do what they I could to introduce necessary reforms. Those were the two grounds on which he seconded the Resolution. He hoped that the Government would say on the one hand that education must be carried out in East Ham as in any other part of the country, and he thought there was be special necessity in East Ham for that to be done, because in the poorer districts it was especially necessary that the system of primary education should be carried out. He also hoped that in enforcing that duty the Government would bear in mind there were real causes upon which discontent was founded, and would do what they could to distribute the burdens of education so that no ratepayers could plead that an unfair share of the burden was laid upon them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Ernes Gray.)
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the House had listened to two remarkable speeches, the moral of which

  995
  was a clear hint to local authorities, that if they only rebelled loudly and violently enough they could get the Government to do all they wanted. Might he suggest the hint to Merioneth? What would have happened if East Ham had been in Ireland? The hon. and learned Member had said that he had always laid it down that if these local people paid, they must have the control. He did not lay that down in 1902. As a matter of fact he not only did not lay it down, but he voted it down. The position in which they found themselves was the result of the slap-dash way in which a number of vital questions were dealt with in the Bill of 1902. Without any warning the Prime Minister came down with a long and intricate scheme for a special aid grant partly in order to commend the maintenance of voluntary schools to people who had not complete control over them, and it was pointed out at the time that the scheme would not do what the Prime Minister said it would do. They had to apply a system of finance to education in very seriously varying conditions. East and West Ham were not the extreme cases. The two extreme cases were Bournemouth with a rateable value of £90 per child and Gateshead with a rateable value of £21 per child. The Prime Minister decided by the Act of 1902 to abolish the special aid grant under the Act of 1870 and the further attempt to meet the matter made under the Act of 1897, thanks to the efforts mainly of the Members for the Forest of Dean and North West Ham. In lieu he gave them a weird sliding scale. Under the Act of 1897 West Ham got £18,000, but under the Prime Minister's scheme they only got £5,000 a year, and they had to provide £11,000 more than ever before for the voluntary school children. Of course, they did not like it. East Ham, as a matter of fact, did better under the Act of 1902 than before. The whole of the special aid grant, which amounted to £2,200,000, was spent by the allocation of 4s. per head all round, but there was no need to do that in all cases. The Prime Minister wanted to commend the Act of 1902 to localities by a lavish allocation of money. Then under Subsection b of Section 10 of the Act the Government gave 1½d for every
  996
  2d. when the proceeds of a penny rate divided among the whole children in the area fell below 10s. The right hon. Gentleman was in reality throwing £1,000,000 away if, as he stated, in 1902, his purpose was to assist poor neighbourhoods. If he meant business he should have given the whole of the £2,200,000 to the necessitous schools, and then he would not have had East and West Ham coming to the House and inciting other authorities to rebellion. This was the result of the Government's bungling. East Ham naturally did not like it, but he objected to their coming down to the House and asking it to break the law. There was a remedy provided in the scheme of the Act of 1902, Section 10, Subsection b. That scheme should be widened and extended in its application, as he had urged in November, 1902, whilst the Government ought to find another £1,000,000 for the necessitous areas. He dissented entirely from the views of the mover and seconder of the Resolution as to the nationalisation of the education charge. That was a dangerous proposition to put to the people. It was true that education was largely a national service, but there ought always to be a local charge in order to secure economy and proper administration, local control, and local initiative. The margin ought to be narrow and should not be more than one-fourth, but it would be diastrous to say that the whole expenses ought to be a national charge.
  MR. DAVID MORGANdrew attention to the claims of Walthamstow and Leyton, which he said had populations of 125,000 and 104,000 respectively. Some 60 per cent, of the population consisted of the working classes who went to London in the early morning and returned in the evening. A large number of the children of these people had to be educated by the people of Walthamstow out of the Walthamstow rates. The education rate there was 2s. 8d., and in Leyton it was Is. 10fd., while now there would be added a 2d. rate for higher education. The House would agree that this was a case for assistance to be given from Imperial taxation. He agreed that it would be a very bad thing indeed if

  997
  the whole amount were to be defrayed from Imperial sources, because it would do away with local control, which was absolutely necessary and without which they could not secure economy or properly carry out the dictates of the Education Board. There were great difficulties to contend with in dealing with two bodies such as the Education Board and the Local Government Board, both of which had to be satisfied. The case of Walthamstow and Leyton ought to commend itself to the House because they had carried out the Act to the best of their power and without a murmur. He confidently appealed for assistance and believed the House would say that some relief should be given to those necessitous districts which had faithfully and truly endeavoured to carry out the Act.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYthought they were in a very serious position with regard to the educational question. Gateshead was in his constituency, and if there was a district that deserved to be assisted it was Gateshead, which had a population of 120,000, of which 90 per cent, was of the artisan class. They ought not to be called upon to bear a larger share in the expense of education than other districts. He hoped some scheme would be evolved to give the needed relief, and, personally, would do his utmost to assist in working one out. They ought to do everything possible to make education popular, and do nothing to encourage difficulties in those districts where the rates were heavy. In the interests of education itself this should not be made a Party.question but one for the nation.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRdeplored the fact that the mover of the Resolution found it necessary to dissociate himself from the actions of the East Ham authorities. He endorsed every word that had been said in answer to the allegation of extravagance that had been brought against East Ham, -and he had obtained information which would prove that that borough had recognised its obligations and had endeavoured to educate its children as cheaply as possible. Instead of spending the whole amount authorised on their schools, they had kept consider-
  998
  ably below it. East Ham had further been unjustly accused of providing unnecessary secondary education and of extravagance in providing education for infants. They had been compelled to provide the additional accommodation, and in doing so had only obeyed the law. If hon. Members would refer to his Amendments tabled to the Act of 1902, they would see that East Ham and other necessitous districts anticipated that they would suffer under it. In 1902 when the Bill was under discussion it was said that it would lead to an immediate increase of the education rate without any corresponding increase of efficiency, and it had done so. It was further said that it would encourage the formation of unnecessary and costly sectarian schools, involving a further increase in the rate, and that also had been borne out by the facts. How did East Ham suffer now? The Prime Minister at the time expressed the opinion that they would be better off under the Act, but as a matter of fact East Ham, which under the Act of 1870, as amended by the Act of 1897, would last year have received £11,000, only received under the present system £10,700 or £10,800; so that the Prime Minister's view had not been borne out, and East Ham, while it had had a heavier burden imposed upon- it, had received a smaller amount to enable it to discharge its duties. A penny rate produced very little; the £15 houses of which the district mainly consisted had been taxed to the utmost limit, and the council felt that they were not justified in imposing any further burden upon them. It was not a Party or a sectarian question; it was simply that the poverty of the district would not allow of the imposition of further burdens.
  In twenty-five years the population had grown from 8,000 to 120,000; in five years the number of children that had to be educated had increased from 12,600 to 23,000, new schools had had to be erected, and they had been forced to ask for special conditions to lessen the expense. The average education rate throughout England was at the outside 1s. 3d.; in East Ham it was 2s. 9d., and would soon be 4s., while the poor rate was 3s. 2d. for the half-year. He did not admit that the East Ham

  999
  Council had acted in so unconstitutional a manner as they were accused of doing. They had no alternative, and the position had been forced upon them. Conference after conference had been held without any good result. They had relied in great measure upon the promises of the Prime Minister in connection with the Act of 1902, but instead of being recognised as a necessitous district they found themselves on absolutely the same level as the rich districts which had no need of assistance whatever. They felt that they had a legitimate grievance; they fully recognised the irresponsibilities, and simply asked that their grievance should be considered. If any hope in that direction were held out he believed they would continue to administer the Act. East Ham educated the children, not for East Ham only, but for the nation generally. The duty had been thrust upon them, and the burden should be made bearable. That was all they asked.
  While not altogether agreeing with all that had been said with regard to the nationalisation of the education rate, he thought the rich districts should bear the same proportion as the poorer districts, and that a rate trust should be inaugurated throughout the country, under which the poorer areas should be so treated that the burden would rest more easily than at present. The population of East Ham was rapidly increasing, with the result that there would be a continuance of this grievance. He admitted that the question would have been forced to the front even if the Act of 1897 had remained in force, but he submitted that the Local Government Board had failed to meet the requirements imposed upon the local authorities, and he blamed them for not having foreseen the difficulties which had arisen. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he could not find some means to mitigate the great grievance which existed, and to the Prime Minister to do what he could to carry out what he foreshadowed in 1902. If those necessitous districts had been placed in the position then promised the present action would not have been necessary.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHsaid the last speaker was much more bold
  1000
  and uncompromising when speaking in the East Ham Town-hall. To-night he had contented himself with appealing to all possible Departments and Ministers, from the Prime Minister down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a considerable step indeed—but at East Ham he was reported in The Times as having said—
  "It was the anomalies of East Ham and similar districts that made the working of the-Education Act impossible."
  The Opposition had always said the Act was impossible, and any convert to their view, even the hon. Member, was a source of great pleasure.
  "He hoped the meeting would fortify the town council—
  That was a somewhat military metaphor for a champion of law and order—
  "And that there would be no climbing down. They had taken up a position and must stand by it. If they had to go to prison they would go—"
  And here came in the self-sacrifice of the hon. Member—
  "If they had to go to prison they would go, and he would suggest that he should go with them on condition that his constituents brought them enough tobacco and other luxuries to make the condition bearable."
  There really seemed to be a very grave state of disorder on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for West Ham must have departed from his views on this question, because when the Defaulting Authorities. Act was passed with reference to Wales the hon. Gentleman took a very serious view of law and order. They then could hardly have imagined he would ever appear there as the champion of anarchy in East Ham. The hon. Member declared on July 15th, 1904, when Wales was concerned, that it was the duty of the Government to see that the law was carried out. How different must be the hon. Member's position to that of the hon. Gentleman who would go to prison. He could think of no worse punishment for either that that they should go together. The hon. Member then stated—
  "It was their duty to carry out the will of Parliament."
  That was a very fine proposition in the abstract so long as it was applied to Wales or to Ireland, but when it came to East Ham it was a very different

  1001
  matter. It was then the duty of the Government not to carry out, but to alter the law.
  The great point of the mover and seconder of the Motion was equality of treatment. That raised a very large question. Were hon. Members opposite in favour of equalisation of rates all round? The cost of education was not the only national matter. What about the poor rate? If equality of treatment was the principle underlying this Motion, he hoped the Board of Education would go in for equality of treatment. If East Ham was to succeed, he hoped Wales also would have some measure of success in the steps she had taken. It was true that Saxon and Celtic methods were a little different. In one case it was a question of cash, in the other conscience. Of course the Government would have more sympathy "with the cash view. The Prime Minister had taken the intolerable strain from the Churchmen and put it upon the ratepayers generally; but if the violent methods of East Ham were going to succeed in making the Government climb down, then the peaceful methods of "Wales should be entitled to similar treatment. He asked the Prime Minister to treat all parts of the country in the same way. They were in some little difficulty in one part of Wales with respect to the Education Act; and three schools in the county of Merioneth had been dealt with, at least to some extent, under the Defaulting Authorities Act. If East Ham, by this step, a distinct breach of the law and of the Constitution, was going to succeed in making the Government climb down, he trusted that they in Wales, who had administered the law within the letter of it up to now would be entitled to the same treatment.and the same measure of sympathy from His Majesty's Government.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, in a speech which contributed perhaps more to the amusement than to the enlightenment of the House—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"]—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will regard that as the highest possible praise—expressed some doubt
  1002
  as to whether the member of the Government who would deal with this Motion would be my hon. friend who is responsible for educational matters here or some other member of the Government. Had the Motion dealt with an educational matter it would have been my hon. friend who would have replied, but it must be obvious to everybody who has studied the case, even in the most cursory fashion, that this Motion has no more to do with education than it has with the Poor Law, and no more to do with the Poor Law than it has with education or with any other obligation the House may put on local authorities to carry out. Indeed, in the view of the local authority principally concerned, the borough council of East Ham, it is evident that the educational aspect of this question has nothing whatever to do with their action, but that they bass the illegal policy which, in a rash and unhappy moment, as I think, they have announced they are going to adopt, not the least on any educational question, but on certain broad issues which go to the very root of our whole system of both national and local government. This is their letter—
  "In view of the heavy rates for national purposes raised locally, amounting to £113,234, being equal to a rate of 5s. 5d. in the £, made up as under:—Elementary education, 2s. 10d.; higher education, 2d.; relief of the poor, 2s. 5d.; this council, representing the burgesses, is of opinion that the rate is unjust, as the burgesses of East Ham are under present conditions paying more than double their share towards national purposes, more particularly in respect of education."
  What is the claim made by the council of East Ham? It is that when the rates reach a point which they consider—and, I am far from denying, consider rightly—to be extremely burdensome, and when the duty is what they describe as a national duty, they have a right to strike against the rate, and to leave unperformed a duty which this House has put upon them. I do not believe the House will agree with that view. I am sure the Government do not agree with that view, and it is not one which we can for one instant accept.
  I must just say one word upon two or three points which have been mentioned incidentally either as

  1003
  palliations of the conduct of this corporation or as throwing some portion of the blame upon the Government. My hon. friend who, in a speech of great ability and moderation, introduced the debate, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camberwell, both charged the financial clause, Clause 10 of the Act of 1902, with having substituted a far worse system than the one which was established by the Act of 1897, and thereby of having deprived the ratepayers of East Ham of money which, had the 1897 Act been allowed to remain in force, they would have received from the public Exchequer.
  DR. MACNAMAEA: I said that East Ham was £2,000 to the good.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He did not make that allegation with regard to East Ham. The allegation has, however, been made, and I think the hon. Gentleman even went the length of correcting it.
  MR. MACNAMAEA: Yes, I did.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. The clause in the Act of 1897 and the clause in the Act of 1902 depend upon different principles. They also deal with different sums, and I may assure the House that under the Act of 1902 I believe all the corporations that were mentioned to-night—East Ham, West Ham, and other districts in the same neighbourhood suffering under the same adverse conditions—have gained rather than lost money by the change. It is quite true that we are approaching, perhaps we have touched, the point at which the balance will be the other way. But since the Act of 1902 was passed, and at the time it was passed, the financial balance was in favour of those localities, and not against them- They have gained, therefore, in the interval from the passing of the Act of 1902, and when my hon. friend talks of an additional burden thrown upon them by that Act, he is looking forward and not back—he is giving his view of what the effect will be in the future; he is not complaining of what the effect has been in the past.
  1004
  Let it be observed—and this is a very important point, I think, if we are to go to main principles, as I propose to do for the most part this evening—that the Act of 1897 made the assistance given by the public Exchequer to the local authorities depend not upon the poverty of that authority so much as upon its expenditure. As the rate rose, so the assistance from this House increased. That is a bad system; it must surely be a bad system. I cannot doubt that it is a bad system; and it really is a direct encouragement of expenditure which, if not extravagant—I mean to use no harsh language—is, at all events, on a very large scale. The Act of 1902, of which the hon. Gentleman opposite has attacked the financial provisions, at all events went on a better plan, as, indeed,, did the Act of 1870; for the assistance given by the House under those two Acts depends upon the poverty of the districts, and not upon their extravagance. That, I think, is the proper plan, and when the subject of public assistance to local authorities is dealt with at a later date by this House I hope that of the two systems that will be the one adopted, and, if need be, developed,, and not the rather dangerous plan which was adopted by the Government in the Act of 1897, and for which, of course, I take my full share of responsibility, as I was myself a member of it.
  I pass from that point to one or two other subsidiary points which have been raised in the course of the debate. It has been pointed out, I think with perfect truth, that one of the difficulties of these districts arises from conditions which are hardly to be found in any other part of the island. I do not say that absolutely. Possibly, for instance, Gateshead, in its economic conditions and position, rather resembles East Ham and West Ham; but it is rare. As a rule the rating in any district touches all the classes concerned in the economic and social life of the district. In Manchester, for example, or in Liverpool, or in Leeds, or in any other great industrial centre, the rate falls not merely upon a particular district of the city from which the working population is drawn, but upon the mills, the warehouses, and to a certain extent upon residential property. It does not

  1005
  fall exclusively, as it does in East Ham and West Ham, upon the houses of the working classes. There is, indeed, an unnatural divorce between East and West Ham and the great London district to which they economically and socially belong, but from which for local purposes they are divided. I believe that the division is entirely in accordance with the wishes of East and West Ham. I think they strongly resisted been absorbed in the metropolitan area, and I daresay the metropolitan area might not, in existing circumstances, be very anxious to absorb them. However that may be as regards the past and the present, nobody can deny that part of the difficulties which these districts feel arises from the fact that they are wholly different in their conditions from other industrial populations, whose rates are raised from many classes—not merely from the workers, but from the places in which they work, from the greatcapitalists and companies by whom the industries of the district are carried on. Nothing of the kind happens in these regions; hence one of the difficulties from which they suffer.
  But that is only a part, I have to admit, of the difficulty which it seems to me is going more and more to come upon us in the future with regard to local rating for public purposes. The facilities of locomotion are increasing every day. The tube, the tram, and the railway—the machinery for conveying working men and employers, and clerks engaged in our great industrial system, from their places of business to their places of residence—are becoming so perfected that you will more and more find what you are finding now to a great extent, namely, that the areas of your local government do not in any sense correspond, as they used to correspond, with the natural economic areas of a great industrial district it does not affect the working class alone. It affects the wealthy manufacturer and the wealthy man of business who goes in every day to his business from a region far removed from that place of business. His local interest, therefore, is only an indirect interest, and, so far as his residence is concerned, he does not contribute a single halfpenny. As regards all classes this process is going on, and
  1006
  it will undoubtedly produce greater and greater difficulties when we try to adjust our rating system to the actual divisions of our local authorities. This: is so as regards this and many other subjects, and that the difficulty will increase I do not doubt.
  Observe, the discussion we are engaged upon has no relation to the educational merits of the Act of 1902, because it so happens, and fortunately perhaps,that the district of East Ham is not touched by any of the controversial divisions of 1902, which arose upon the question of the management of voluntary schools and in relation to religious teaching closely bound up with voluntary schools. Heaven forbid that I should raise those questions on the present occasion. An hon. Gentleman opposite called the discussion slap-dash treatment of the education question in 1902, but the discussion went on for nine months.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he applied the remark to Clause 10 of the Act which was rushed through in a slap-dash manner.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It could hardly be applied to the discussion. Fortunately for the important issue now raised none of the controversial questions of 1902 come in. In East Ham there are only two Roman Catholic schools, and the great bulk of the teaching is given in provided schools, and the rate the borough council has declared an intention to repudiate is not for the sup port of voluntary, but for provided schools. Therefore, the only question for the House to consider is that of the obligation of local authorities to carry out the duties this House has imposed upon them.
  Now I have listened with interest during this discussion to see if any light was to be thrown on this point by the various speakers, but I confess that I have not received much illumination from it myself—perhaps it is my fault. I should like to know is the House prepared to accept the view advanced with great confidence by at least one speaker that we ought not only to contribute to local rates, but ought to do so in proportion to the poverty of the district? I believe that it is a fair

  1007
  method if we do contribute, but you cannot stop with the education rate, nor do I think it is the main one for which the claim could be made. We do contribute to education now very largely from the Exchequer. I believe the contribution, taking the whole country, is between 60 and 70 per cent., roughly speaking. Now, my hon. and learned friend who seconded and my hon. friend who moved this Motion, are both in favour of what is called nationalising these public services, but they admitted that if you are going to leave localities with responsibility of management it is absolutely necessary to throw upon the locality an appreciable portion of the cost. This is plain common sense. I do not think this House would ever consent in any moment of insanity to hand over to a locality absolute control of public funds, putting on the locality no charge or penalty whatever for mismanagement or extravagance. I do not say that with a contribution of 60 or 70 per cent, we have reached the limit of contribution that can be safely given by the State. I do not lay down any absolute proportion, but I say the limit cannot be very far off. I do not know what my hon. friend thinks the proportion should be.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: A shilling in the pound.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The proportionate the total amount is what I meant. What proportion of the amount spent by the locality ought to be contributed by the taxpayers of the country. I do not say it should not be more than 60 or 70 per cent., but we approach a point where it would be dangerous to go much further and leave sufficient inducement for that rigid economy which is not always practised in regard to education even now. In regard to Poor Law relief we give nothing whatever. I know there are certain small contributions, but I
  1008
  do not think I need go into them. Broadly speaking, the whole burden of the Poor Law falls on the locality, and falls more heavily on the poor locality than on the rich one. Are we going to lay down the proposition—I am not arguing that we ought not to do it—that the State should contribute, and should contribute in proportion to the poverty of the district, to the local charge incurred for a national object? I do not know how that is to be decided. But one point has not been referred to to-night which is absolutely inseparable from the subject, and which I think must be considered if we are to get local government into a healthy condition. It. appears to be the view of all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that the localities charged with education have nothing to think of but the excellence of the education they give; that they have not to consider the means at their disposal to provide education, but merely to consider whether the education comes up to some ideal standard which is provided for them. It is said they cannot be blamed for spending this or that amount because the standard is laid down by the Education Department. I think, with deference, that is not accurate. That the Education Department is bound, when the country contributes so largely to education, to see that a standard is maintained is not to be denied; but will anybody say that had the Corporation of East Ham spent less on its schools there would have been any interference on the part of the Board of Education? ["Yes."] One hon. friend behind me said the borough of East Ham had been building two or three schools, and another said the fact that they had to build two or three schools more was the last straw which produced the present crisis, and they both suggested that the Education Board at Whitehall was responsible for the cost of those buildings. That was quite inaccurate. As far as I am able to judge, it was not the business of this

  1009
  corporation to build these schools at the cost at which they have built them. It is not a subject on which I speak with any authority. But I am told that the last school built in East Ham was built at a cost of £18 per child, and I am told that the average cost of the schools recently built in Leeds was between £12 and £13 per child.
  DR. MACNAMARA: There is the cost of the ground.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: These estimates are made irrespective of the cost of the site. There may have been some local circumstance unknown to me which justified the expenditure in East Ham of £18. What were they?
  DR. MACNAMARA: Cost of labour and materials.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that the schools in London have been very costly, but I should require strong evidence to convince me that it was right for East Ham, on the verge of what it considered bankruptcy itself, to spend £18 6s. 10d. per head, when, as I say, in other regions it is found possible to build for a much smaller figure. Who is responsible for that? My hon. friend says the Education Board.
  MR.ERNEST GRAYsaid it was important to defend East Ham from a charge of extravagance. In boroughs contiguous to London the London rate of wages and charges for material applied to them, and the schools had to be built in compliance with a whole volume of rules by the Board of Education.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the Education Department would hamper my hon. friend or the Corporation of East Ham with rules which they could not relax in case of need. It may be—I am not qualified to say—that the whole difference between—12 and—13 and—18 is due to the difference of the rate of wages between Leeds and London. To me it is a startling proposition. I would like to have some evidence before I accept it. But I do not want to make a charge against any corporation without clear evidence that the charge is deserved. I should like to ask the House whether they think that an education authority should cut its educational effort according to its financial cloth, or do they think that an education policy should be pursued absolutely in the abstract, that a certain standard should be reached no matter what it costs to the ratepayers, and the ratepayers should come to the Exchequer and say, "You have put upon us too heavy a burden, new you must find some way out"? I do not think we can accept that. It does not seem to me to be in accordance with common sense.
  I recognise that the burden of the rates in the eastern part of London and some other parts of the country is increased in consequence of the requirements which this House has put upon them—not in consequence of the Education Act of 1902, or any other particular Education Act, but in consequence of the burden of education which we have thrown upon them—in consequence of the standard of education required by the community. But if the cost has risen and is rising by excess in that and other municipal directions, how are you going to deal with it? It is very simple to say it shall be thrown on the Exchequer.

  1011
  In the first place, the burdens of the Exchequer to a large extent, though not wholly, fall also on the ratepayer, and, in the second place, the cost if thrown on the Exchequer will inevitably modify your whole system of taxation. Unless the external circumstances of this country change more than I think they are likely to change, hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be likely to make those huge reductions in expenditure which they hope to make. The House will not be able to do it. If, then, you are going further to throw on this House all that the local authorities feel that they are unable to sustain, how are you going to get money to carry out the new obligations? Hon. Gentlemen do not bring together different parts of their own political creed. For instance, a great many Gentlemen desire to see the duty of feeding school children thrown upon the rates. I am not going to argue now whether that is a good or a bad system; but that the additional burden will be enormous is obvious on the face of it. The burden is far greater than can be borne. How are you going to meet it? Why, of course, the Exchequer. And then I suppose we shall have some further claim. The very people who, in their philanthropic moments, are urging this kind of expenditure are in their economic moments denouncing the growth of the national expenditure and blaming my right hon. friend for being unable to bring forward Estimates smaller in amount.
  I hope I have said enough to show that the illegal policy which the council of East Ham suggested touches on issues which go to the very root of our whole system of public and local taxation. It cannot be considered in isolation. I think this House would be very much to blame, and
  1012
  the Government would be very much to blame, if, in obedience to any threat from any local authority, they were to give a promise for dealing with it except as part of a well-considered scheme. I hope my hon. friend who moved the Motion, and who represents the district, does not think I am unsympathetic with the difficulties of the ratepayers. Even if these ratepayers and their representatives have been more lavish than they ought to have been, I agree in thinking that the inseparable circumstances of these districts, so long as they remain isolated, put them in circumstances of exceptional difficulty, and, it may be, of exceptional hardship. But I think that is no justification for the authorities of East Ham, in the first place, to lay down the proposition that they have to carry out a great deal of work that ought to be carried out by the State, and then to say what part of the work they will not carry out and what part of it they will condescend to carry out. All local government will break down unless a standard of public duty is set up which would make such a course quite impossible. It is the duty of this House—it is our duty, to whichever side we belong, to do our best to make the heavy weight of public and local taxation bear as evenly as we can upon the shoulders that have to bear them. It is our duty to be as economical as we can, both in the use of public funds and in the use of local funds, and I entirely separate myself from those, of whom there appear to be many on the other side of the House, who think economy is a virtue that ought to be practised by the public Exchequer,, but a virtue which ought not to be practised by local corporations. I do not hold that a corporation has only to consider the object and not the means, and that merely to say that the object is

  1013
  education is an adequate justification of any expenditure which can be shown, even in the smallest degree, to subserve the end of education. In public and private life the exigence of an object is not by itself a justification for paying for it if you have not the means. It is all a question of degree and of the adjustment of means to ends. But one thing we cannot do; one thing this House ought never to do; it ought never to tolerate on the part of any public authority the abandonment of the duties which this House has entrusted to it, because if we relax our principles in such a matter, we shall not only be doing a very poor service to the particular community which commits the crime, but we shall be committing a crime against the whole system of local self-government.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that those who had listened to the speech of the Prime Minister must feel that this was not so much a question of education as of the incidence of rating generally. They must cast their minds back to 1896, when the Government brought in an important rating reform, with a promise that it was only to be temporary, and that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on ratiny should be carried out. That temporarg Act had been renewed, and yet during the period it had been in operation the Government had made no effort to put the question of rating on a more satisfactory basis. This was not a question which affected merely East Ham. There were many other sufferers up and down the country who were equally bearing their burdens, and bearing them with greater patience and fortitude. What the Education Act had done was to bring into
  1014
  prominence the position which our system of local rating had really reached in the country, and to show that its inequalities, not alone in regard to London but throughout the country generally, were such that localities could not stand the great additional burden which the Education Act had cast upon the rates. He thought this debate had clearly emphasised the necessity for the Government taking in hand the whole question of rating instead of being satisfied with temporary measures which might give slight amelioration.
  MR. EMMOTTexpressed, his profound dissatisfaction with the speech of the Prime Minister. He was, he thought, a little mistaken in supposing East and West Ham peculiar. There were other places which were in the position of East and West Ham. His own constituency—although the rates were about 2s. in the £ and not 3s.—was a case in point. There was no question there of a population which worked in one district and lived in another. The population there lived and worked in the town where the rates were so high' and he was quite sure there were many other places besides East and West Ham where the circumstances were similar. One thing in which he did agree with the Prime Minister was that the discussion that night did bear on the wider question of our local taxation, and it was because our Imperial subventions were divided so unfairly, because the poor places got so little compared with many agricultural counties and many other towns, that the difficulty arose. That was the real reason why places like East and West Ham and another "Ham "—Oldham—felt the pressure in this matter.

  1015
  He did not think that it arose iron: extravagance. The so-called extravagance arose in East Ham probably iron higher wages and increased cost of material. But, taking the Prime Minister's own figures, supposing that East Ham spent £6 too much, that would only be £150,000, and the interest on that at i per cent, would only be £6,000, or a rate of 3½d;. They were not complaining of a rate of 3½d, but of about 2s. 6d Therefore he did not think it was extravagance in building that had caused this For himself, as representing a constituency in very much the same position, he must say he had listened with great dissatisfaction to the speech of the Prime Minister, for he had promised nothing and he had held out no hope of dealing with a matter that ought to have beer dealt with long ago.
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes,159. (Division List No. 150.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Hayter, Et. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Parrott, William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hemphill, Et. Hon. Charles H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Austen, Sir John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Arthur

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Benn, John Williams

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

  Blake, Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Johnson, John

  Russell, T. W.

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Joicey, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Shackleton, David James

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cawley, Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Spencer, Et. Hn.C. E (Northants

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sullivan, Donald

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Dillon, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Warner, Thomas Gourtenay T.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Kcan, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Kenna, Eeginald

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ellice, Capt EC (SAndrw'sBghs

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mass, Samuel

  Wilson, John (Falkiik)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Harwood and Mr. Mooney.

  Grey, Et. Hon Sir E. (Berwick)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Griffith, Ellis J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hareourt, Lewis

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Bowles, Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex)

  Alhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

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

  Bowles. T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Brassey, Albert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Bryuaer, William Ernest

  Arnold-Forster, Et. Hn. Hugh O

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Butcher, John George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bathurst, Hn. A. Benjamin

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bigwood, James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bingham, Lord

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Randles, John S.

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

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

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Renwick, George

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Kerr, John

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawrence, Wm. F (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

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

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Dimsdale, Rt Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lockwood, Lieut.- Col. A. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fellowes, Rt Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Macdona, John cumming

  Tuff, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

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

  M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh're

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

  Garfit, William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Milvain, Thomas

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'mlets

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Grey, Ernest (West Ham)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hardy, Lawrence (Kent, Ashford

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Helder, Augustus

  Percy, Earl

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Findlay, Alexander (L'n'rk, N. E

  Lloyd-George, David

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord' Edmond

  Lough, Thomas

  Benn, John Williams

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lundon, W.

  Black, Alexander William

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bowlef. Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brigg, John

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Burns, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Burt, Thomas

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Caldwell, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Moss, Samuel

  Cawley, Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, T. P. Liverpool)

  Delany, William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Kelly, (Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Parrott, William

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnson, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dillon, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lambert, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Ellice, Capt E C S (Andr'w'sB'ghs

  Langley, Batty

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Runciman, Walter

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  White, Luke (York, E. E.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Tomkinson, James

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders'd

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYE—Mr. Ernest Gray and Mr. J. H. Whitley.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Slack, John Bamford

  White, George (Norfolk)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Goschen, Hon. G. Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Gretton, John

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Helder, Augustus

  Randies, John S.

  Bathurst, Hon. A Hen Benjamin

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford. W

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Beach. Rt. Hn. Sir Machael Hicks

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Bigwood, James

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Bingham, Lord

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bond, Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jebb, Sir R. Claverhouse

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bull, William James

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Butcher, John George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cavendish, V C. W. (Derbyshire

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albeit

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N R

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

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

  Tuff, Charles

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh.W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Doxford. Sir William Theodore

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Fellowes. Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne)

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

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

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Invern'ssB'ghs)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milvain, Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  COLONEL BOWLES, as representing a district which had certainly suffered under the Education Act, joined with the hon. Member opposite in expressing dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Prime Minister. They ought to have widened their school districts rather than narrowed them. The district of Edmonton could not be accused of extravagance, for it had built its schools for something less than £14 per head. When the prices paid in other places were considered, it might be said that they had practised economy. The rate in Edmonton must be shortly 3s. in the £?, and that showed something must be done to relieve the difficulties which were pressing on these localities.
  Question put.

  SUPPLY (5TH ALLOTTED DAY).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS I.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £62,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  MR. WHITLEYasked for an explanation of the increased charge in respect of Richmond Park and for information as to the control of motor-cars there. There had been a great deal of complaint because the drivers of motor-cars utilised the good roads in Richmond Park as a sort of racing ground, making it unsafe for children to be sent there to find enjoyment. He noticed that a placard had been put up with the object of mitigating the nuisance, but it appeared to him to have been ineffective. Would the noble Lord inform the House what were the regulations which applied to motor-car driving in Richmond Park?
  MR. KEIR HARDIEdrew attention to the rates of wages paid to the gardeners in Kew Gardens. The wages paid there were considerably under those which were paid to men doing the same class of work in the public parks of London. He wished to ask whether the noble Lord, to whom complaints had been made on the subject, intended to raise the wages of these men to the same level that obtained in the metropolitan area.
  MR. J. H. LEWISexpressed the hope that the noble Lord would pay special attention to the complaint with respect to motor-cars in Richmond Park.
  MR. CROOKSsupported the claim put forward for an increase of wages to the men and boys employed at Kew Gardens. He did not think anyone would say that the servants under the County Council were more efficient than those employed at Kew, and yet the difference in their wages was very serious indeed. These men had petitioned in the most respectful manner for an increase of pay. If hon. Members did not seize this opportunity of getting a reply from the Department concerned it was difficult to see how the question could be raised. The same difficulty arose here as in other Departments. If the men attempted to raise the question direct they were told that they must approach the Department through their superiors, and if they went to their superiors they were met with rude remarks. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members did not receive such treatment from Departmental officials, but they were not in the position of humble labourers asking a civil question.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE AND SEWERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.