Sitting of 20 June 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill (by Order).—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
United Methodist Church Bill [Lords]. —Mr. Essex, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Gwynn, Sir John Randles, and Mr. Luke White nominated Members of the Select Committee on the United Methodist Church Bill [Lords].—(Mr. Whiteley.)
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Amendments to Metropolitan Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords].
Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited, Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Harrison's Patent Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Wisbech, for protection) of the Native Races; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Lanark; and Urquhart; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Chorleywood; and Holborn; to lie upon the Table.
  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  Petition from Birmingham, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Bermondsey, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from Norbury and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 253 (Ashanti, Annual Report for 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1907, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of The Civil List Act, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 206.]
  EAST INDIA (EXCISE COMMITTEE).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 12th June; Mr. Herbert Roberts]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3834 and 3835 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th May; Captain Donelan]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CONTRACTS).
  Return ordered, "of all Contracts made in the United Kingdom for manufactured articles by the several Government Departments in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1907, either with contractors outside the United Kingdom or with contractors or agents who obtain the articles from Abroad (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 283, of Session 1906.)"—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  St. Mary's College, Waterford.
  Mr. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount per head contributed by the Treasury towards the support of inmates treated at the certified inebriate reformatory at St. Mary's College, Waterford; is he aware that in England, when these homes were first started under the provisions of the Inebriates Act, 1898, 10s. 6d. weekly for each inmate was allowed and continued for six years; and, if so, why is not the same weekly grant made in the case of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman,.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I have given to-day to the hon. Member for West Clare.

  Coastguard Cottages.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how it is proposed to dispose of the coastguard cottages where a coastguard station is in process of being abolished; and whether the Admiralty contemplate sub-letting the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Where the property remains in the hands of the Admiralty its disposal must depend on circumstances, but sub-letting would certainly be considered.

  Heyhouses School, St. Anne's-on-the-Sea.
  MR. HIGHAM: To ask the President of the Board of Education if Reports have been made to him as to the unfit state of the Heyhouses School, St. Anne's-on-the-Sea, both sanitarily and educationally;

  587
  and what steps he proposes to take in regard thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have received a Report from His Majesty's inspector, calling attention to the unsatisfactory condition of this school, and correspondence has passed with the local education authority upon the subject. The managers propose to effect a reconstruction of the premises, including a considerable enlargement, in respect of which public notice has been given under Section 8 of the Education Act, 1902. An appeal against the proposed enlargement, signed by ten ratepayers in the district, has been received by the Board, and it will be their duty to determine the question at issue under Section 9 of that Act.

  Derry Telegraph Office.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there is an undue proportion of female labour employed in the Derry telegraph office, with the result that the male telegraphists have to spend three-fourths of the year on late or night duty; will he look into the matter and, if possible, readjust the staff so that reasonable hours may be enjoyed by the male telegraphists.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General is he aware that the learners who entered the service in 1903 in Derry office are still unappointed, not withstanding the fact that they have been employed on full duty for the past two years, and constant work has also been found for female substitutes within the period mentioned; and, seeing that an increase in the established staff appears necessary at Derry, would he say when he proposes to appoint the learners in question.
  (Answered by Mr, Sydney Buxton.) It will be convenient to answer both of the hon. Member's Questions together. I do not think there is an undue proportion of female labour employed on telegraph duties at Londonderry; but a revision of the indoor force is now under consideration, and the question of arranging the duties to the best advantage will be borne in mind. I hope it will be possible to provide established appointments for the learners in question.

  Local Taxation Licences.
  MR. HIGHAM: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the local taxation licences the proceeds of which are now transferred to the Local Taxation Accounts.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) They will be found enumerated in the first schedule to the Local Government Act, 1888.

  National Telephone Company Tariff.
  LIEUTENANT - COLONEL PHILIPPS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the new tariff issued by the National Telephone Company, as from the 1st of January, 1907, whereby all unlimited tariffs for business purposes are withdrawn; whether he is aware that an ordinary business house having its office within one mile of a local exchange, with an average of twenty calls per day, would under such revised tariff be called upon to pay £23 14s. 8d. per annum for such service as against £10 paid by subscribers who were connected prior to the 1st January, 1907, and remain under the old tariff; whether the National Telephone Company or the Post Office Department are responsible for this change; and whether he will take steps to relieve the extra burden thus proposed to be placed upon the commercial community of this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am aware that a new tariff was brought into use by the National Telephone Company on the 1st January last, and that the unlimited service rate for business lines was withdrawn. Experience has shown that this rate is not profitable and that it tends to encourage subscribers to originate more calls than their lines will carry without blocking inward calls, thus rendering the service loss efficient. The general demand in this country, as in America, is now for a measured service, which proportions the payment to the service obtained and allows moderate rates to be given to small users. An average of twenty calls a day originated by any subscriber would, if due allowance were made for a corresponding number of inward calls, be more than one line could carry, and two lines would

  589
  properly be required. Under the new tariff at the private branch exchange rate two exchange lines and the right to originate 6,000 calls would cost £21 10s., which is at the rate of about fourteen calls for 1s., and the charge for additional calls would be at the rate of less than ½d. each.

  Extra Police at Geevagh (Co. Sligo).
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of extra police at present stationed in the country district of Geevagh, situate near Riverstown, county Sligo; whether he is aware that the county court judge, as well as the judge of assize, have pronounced the county as being in a most peaceable state; and, if so, will he state why an extra police force is stationed in this district; and whether the rates will be held chargeable for any portion of the cost of the maintenance of this force.

  Governors of Colonies, other than those possessing Responsible Government Appointments, from 1st January, 1900, to 17th June, 1907.

  Year.

  Number of Governors appointed.

  Number previously in Colonial Service (including Governorships).

  Not previously in Colonial Service.

  Civilians.

  Military

  Naval.

  1900

  8

  6

  —

  2

  —

  1901

  4

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1902

  3

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1903

  5

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1904

  16

  15

  —

  1

  —

  1905

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1906

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1907, to 17th June

  4

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  45

  38†

  None

  7‡

  None

  †This total includes two appointments of Governors whose previous service had been in the Colonial Office.

  ‡Six of these appointments were to Military Governments. The seventh was the appointment of an officer who had previously served as secretary to the Colonial Defence Committee.

  I hope the hon. Member will not over look that the labour involved in preparing this Answer to a Question is almost
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Nine extra policemen are stationed at Geevagh. At the late spring assizes the Judge said that the calendar showed the county of Sligo to be in a peaceable state. The responsible police authorities consider the extra police at Geevagh to be necessary for the preservation of the police. These extra men belong to the established force of the county, and no charge therefore will fall on the local rates.

  Governors of Crown Colonies.
  MR. MACLEAN: To ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many governors of Crown Colonies have been appointed in each year since and including 1900, and how many of them had been previously in the Colonial Service; and of those not previously in the Colonial Service how many were civilians, military or naval officers, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill)
  as extensive as that of many Parliamentary Returns ordered by the House to be furnished.

  Indian Coolies in Ceylon.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, having regard to the fact that rice is the staple food of the Indian coolie immigrant in Ceylon, he will consider the expediency of arranging for a reduction in the present tax in Ceylon on that article of food.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am not aware that the tax is found to bear hardly on the Indian immigrants, and, inasmuch as it brings in a large sum to the revenue which is being expended on railways, irrigation, and other objects which benefit both the immigrant and the native population of the island, the Secretary of State, as at present advised, is not disposed to interfere with it.

  Line Schools in Ceylon.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what progress has been made with the establishment of line schools in Ceylon, by whom will the schools be inspected, and is it proposed that the attendance at school of coolie children on tea estates should be compulsory.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It is understood that an Ordinance dealing with these matters has recently been passed by the Ceylon Legislature, but it has not yet been received, and until it arrives, I am not in a position to give the hon. Member the information for which he asks.

  Public Trustee Act.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Attorney-General, what steps are being taken to bring The Public Trustee Act, 1906, into operation on 1st January, 1908; and if an estimate will be submitted to Parliament of the amount sufficient to ensure that the Act shall, in the public interest, have a fair trial over an adequate number of years.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that a Committee was appointed early in the year to consider and advise as to the constitution of the office of public trustee, and as to the rules for carrying the Act into effect. Their labours are
  592
  nearly completed, and there is no doubt that everything will be ready in good time before the Act comes into operation.

  Post Office Savings Bank Deposits.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what, on 31st December, 1906, was the total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; what amount of Consols was sold during the year 1906, and at what average price; what was the amount of Consols held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st December, 1906, and what is the average price per cent. at which the stock was purchased; and what is the deficiency (if any) in the income account of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The figures asked for by my hon. friend are given below:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1906 -

  155,996,446

  0

  0

  Amount of Consols sold during the year 1906 -

  1,777,644

  0

  0

  Average price at which these Consols were sold -

  88

  3

  1

  Amount of Consols held at 31st December, 1906 -

  59,977,688

  0

  0

  Cost price on balance of Consols held at 31st December, 1906 -

  103

  0

  3

  The deficiency in the income account for the year 1906 amounted to

  119,870

  0

  0

  The apparently large amount of Consols sold in the year includes £1,715,644 Consols transferred to depositors at the average price of the day. During the same period Consols to the amount of £883,730 were purchased by transfer from depositors.

  West Ham Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he has received Reports from His Majesty's inspectors as to overcrowding in West Ham schools; whether these Reports include the presence of 100 children in a room accommodating sixty-two at the S. Hallsville girls school on 30th May last, and of 102 children in a room accommodating sixty at the North Street boys' school on 28th May; whether it has been reported to him that about the above-mentioned dates there were more than fifty class rooms grossly overcrowded in West Ham public elementary schools, and that this state of things continues without diminution; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that there is considerable overcrowding in some of the class rooms in the West Ham schools, and those mentioned in the question are among the number. The causes to which this overcrowding may be attributed appear to be:

  (1)At the beginning of the educational year, which in West Ham is the 1st April, there is a large influx of children promoted from the infants' schools into the boys' and girls' schools, while the corresponding efflux of scholars due to their leaving school does not take place to any considerable extent until the summer holidays.

  (2)Many of the boys' and girls' schools were built with five class rooms only, when the number of scholars in the higher classes was small. The raising of the age and standard for total exemption has caused a large increase, and these classes have now to be sub-divided. In these schools an additional class room seems to be required.

  (3) The rapid growth of the population in the district makes it extremely difficult for the local education authority to keep pace with it.

  The overcrowding of public elementary schools at this time of the year is not unusual, and is not peculiar to West Ham. Many other authorities have found
  594
  similar difficulties in preventing temporary overcrowding at the time when promotions from the infants' school take place. I am suggesting to the West Ham local authority the advisability of changing the date of the education year to 1st August, which I am advised would do much to lessen the difficulties, and I am further asking them to consider the advisability of adding the class room to certain of the schools where the pressure is most acute.

  Education Grants.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, when allocating the special grant to local education authorities having a specially high rate he takes into consideration any reduction of the ordinary grants by the Board on account of inefficiency; and whether he reduces the special grant by an amount equal to that previously deducted from the ordinary grant in order to give full effect to the Board's fine for such inefficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) In calculating the special grant it is the practice of the Board to take into consideration any deduction from the ordinary grants made under Article 30 of the Code. The desirability of giving full effect to the Board's action in regard to fines is recognised.

  Victoria Machinery Imports.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade why in the Colonial Statistical Abstract, the imports of machinery into Victoria are made to include agricultural implements in the years 1901 and 1902, but exclude them in the year 1899 and 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) The hon. Member is probably alluding to the figures published in the Colonial Abstract for 1902, in which the figures given for the imports of machinery into Victoria incorrectly included agricultural implements in 1901 and 1902. These figures, which were published as returned by the Colonial authorities, were subsequently revised, and if the hon. Member will consult the issue of the same Abstract for 1903, he will see, that the imports of

  595
  agricultural implements were excluded from the figures of the total imports of machinery in all the years included in that issue. I should perhaps add that the preliminary figures for 1903 given in the volume referred to have also been subsequently revised, and that the final figures for the imports of machinery, exclusive of agricultural implements, into Victoria in the years 1899 to 1903 are as follows:—In 1899, £244,696; 1900, £213,795; 1901, £366.318; 1902, £366,469; 1903, £377,081. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with the details if they interest him.

  United States Machinery Imports.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether under the head of imports from the United States on page 240 of Vol. II. of the Annual Trade Returns for 1906, the item "all other kinds of machinery" is intended to include electrical machinery of all kinds; and, if so, why such electrical machinery to the value of £305,563 in 1903 and £289,973 in 1904 is not included in these years, though the corresponding values are included in 1902, 1905, and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I am informed by the Board of Customs that they regret that the figures for electrical machinery were inadvertently omitted from the entries referred to, and that the correct figures are for 1903, £1,848,043, and for 1904, £1,658,126.

  Irish Land Purchase-C. F. M'Nally's Case.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that a tenant (C. F. M'Nally), who had purchased his farm under the 1896 Land Act, applied to the Land Commission to redeem his annuity, under Section 2 of The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and received the reply that as no regulations were made to enable tenants to avail of the section they could give no definite answer; and will he say what action he proposes to take to enable his tenant to avail of this section.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The Land Commission inform me that Mr. M'Nally did not apply to redeem his annuity, but asked whether he could pay one-fourth of the half-yearly instalment in Guaranteed Land Stock. In reply the Land Commission informed him that no regulations on the subject had been made, and he has since paid the instalment of his annuity in cash. As regards the concluding part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to an Answer given by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the 12th instant, from which it appears that the question of making regulations is under consideration.

  Women on Scottish Local Bodies.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Bill for enabling women to serve on local bodies in Scotland will be introduced during the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Cattle Slaughter in the Island of Alderney.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received copies of resolutions passed at parish meetings of the Island of Alderney, held on 22nd May, 1906, and on 5th July, 1906, and if he will state the replies he gave to the prayer contained in those resolutions begging for his assistance, and for an inquiry to be held into the scheme for importing animals to Alderney for slaughter; whether he has received a letter, dated 31st January, 1907, from certain influential inhabitants of Alderney; and if he will state the nature of the reply sent thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)The first of the two resolutions to which I understand the hon. Member to refer was passed at a parish meeting on the 2nd May, 1906, and was sent to the Board of Agriculture. The Board's reply was to the effect that it would be their duty to prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals from the Channel

  597
  Islands in the event of the admission thereto of animals brought from any of the countries from which the importation of animals into Great Britain is for the time being prohibited. The Board of Agriculture furnished me with a copy of this resolution and of their reply. The second resolution, which was, as the hon. Member states, passed on 5th July, was sent to me through the lieutenant-governor of the island, and my reply was that I had considered the resolution, but that I did not see my way to take any action thereon. I also received, on 10th April last, a letter, dated 21st January, 1907, from certain of the ratepayers of the island, and this was duly acknowledged. On the general question I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to my hon. friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 26th and 29th of last November. †

  Chelsea Ratepayer's Default.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. A. V. Saunders, a ratepayer of Chelsea for over twenty years, who recently made default in payment for the first time, of one rate, was committed to Brixton prison for three months for non-payment of a relatively small sum; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, he will consider the advisability of remitting the unexpired part of this sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone)I have not heard of the case to which the hon. Member refers. The Crown has no power to reduce a sentence of imprisonment passed for non-payment of rates. Application can be made with the consent of the borough council, to two justices in petty sessions that the defaulter may be excused payment of the rate, under Section 11 of 54 Geo. 3, cap. 170, but I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

  Northfleet Electric Lighting.
  MR. ROWLANDS:To ask the President of the Local Govern-
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxv. 1237-8, clxvi. 303.
  598
  ment Board whether he is aware that under the sanction of the Board the Gravesend Town Council took over the Electric Lighting Order of the North-fleet District Council; and whether, seeing that the Gravesend Town Council now refuse to supply the North fleet District Council under conditions in accordance with which the Order was taken over, he will say what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Electric Lighting Order for Northfleet was granted to the Gravesend Corporation in 1905, the Northfleet Council's Order of 1901 being revoked by the 1905 Order by consent. The time prescribed by the 1905 Order for the completion of the compulsory works prescribed by that order does not expire until 11th August next. If by that date those works are not completed, I shall be prepared to consider any representations which the Northfleet Council may make for the revocation of the Order.

  United Provinces Tea Garden Children.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say what steps are being taken to secure the education of children on tea gardens in the United Provinces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The area of tea gardens in the United Provinces, according to the last Returns, is only 7,934 acres. I am not aware that any special steps are taken to secure the education of children on these gardens. The ordinary primary schools of the country are open to them, as to other children in rural areas.

  Indian Plague Investigation Committee.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the Command Paper entitled Statement exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India, 1905–6, declares that very valuable results have been obtained by the Plague Investigation Committee, will he consider the expediency of appointing a committee to inquire into the prevalence of cancer

  599
  in India, and the measures taken to combat with the disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The investigations which the hon. Member desires are already being prosecuted in India by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in co-operation with the Government of India. Arrangements have been made for the systematic collection of data as to the prevalence of the disease in India and for the transmission of the same by medical officers to the Cancer Research Fund for examination and record. The research work which the fund is carrying on will guide the Indian medical authorities in the adoption of measures for combating the disease, which relatively to plague has a very slight effect on the health of the general population of India.

  Ballyquaide Glebe, Ballybrophy.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what basis was the calculation made that the amount of £250 was found to be due to the Irish Land Commission by Mr. Robert Pearson, of Clonmore, Errill, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, at the time he sold his property known as Ballyquaide Glebe, Ballybrophy, Queen's County, to his tenants in 1894.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have sent to the hon. Member a full statement, giving the information asked for in the Question.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act Inspectors.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether in future appointments of inspectors in connection with the administration of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts will be open to competition, and notice given in the Press of any such appointments to be made.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is not intended to appoint inspectors for the purposes of the Labourers Acts by open competition. In making any further
  600
  appointments which may be required, the Local Government Board will, as they have done in previous cases, satisfy themselves that the persons to be appointed possess the special knowledge and experience necessary to the proper fulfilment of the duties.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say who were the temporary inspectors appointed recently in connection with the administration of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; what were their qualifications, and whether they had to pass any examination for the position; and, if so, was it competitive; and whether any notice was given in the Press or elsewhere that these appointments were to be made; and if he will say how many candidates were seeking the position.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The temporary inspectors recently appointed were: Mr. J. P. Hannigan, an inspector under the Estates Commissioners; Mr. Max Green, an architect already in the Civil Service; and Mr. F. J. McCarthy, an official of the Local Government Board with long experience of the Labourers Acts. No examination is required in cases of this kind. No official notice that the appointments were to be made was published in the Press, but the fact that an additional staff would be appointed was stated in Parliament during the passage of the Labourers Bill, and widely circulated in the Press. The Local Government Board cannot say how many persons were seeking these particular appointments. A very large number of the applications received by the Board are simply for employment under the Board, no particular post being specified.

  School Attendance and Spotted Fever.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the recent spotted fever scare in Belfast caused a decrease in the average attendance at many of the national schools, that the National Commissioners of Education have notified the withdrawal of salary from teachers where

  601
  attendances have not reached the standard, and that Rule 83 (b) provides for these exceptional cases, he will recommend the Board to continue the grant for an additional period of insufficient attendance.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, in cases in which the attendance has been exceptionally reduced owing to the spotted fever or any other epidemic, they have exercised their power of continuing the grants for assistants, and will continue to exercise that power in proper cases.

  Thurles Footpath Dispute.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Colonel Ryan-Lanigan, of Ballycahill, Thurles, in the county Tipperary, has endeavoured to prevent the people of the district from using a path on his lands, which they have used for years, by barring the way; if he can say on whose authority two policemen stand on or near the gap every Sunday when the people are going to mass, and for what purpose; and whether he will take steps to see that the police, in future, do not interfere in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that a dispute exists between Colonel Ryan-Lanigan and the people of the district in regard to an alleged right of way. The police were instructed some weeks ago not to interfere in the matter beyond taking steps for the preservation of the peace. It is for that purpose only that the presence of the police at the spot is considered necessary.

  Tyne Volunteer Infantry Brigade.
  MR. LANE-FOX: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Tyne Volunteer Infantry Brigade, numbering nearly 4,000 men, will shortly go into camp at Ripon; whether the whole of the contract for supplying the force with meat has been placed with Birkenhead contractors for frozen meat; and
  602
  whether he can use his influence to secure that some part, if not all, of the contract is placed with local tradesmen and producers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)The arrangements for the supply of meat to the Volunteers in question are made regimentally by the corps concerned to the best advantage of their funds. The Army Council does not interfere in any way with their arrangements.

  Patrick Tye's Pension.
  MR. GLOVER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Tye, who served his country as under:—In the 1st Connaught Rangers 6 years 256 days (6 years in the East Indies); 1st Class Army Reserve, 5 years 109 days; Section 1). Army Reserve, 4 years; Royal Irish Reserve Regiment, 1 year; Royal Garrison Regiment, 2 years 47 days; and 4th Connaught Rangers Militia Reserve, 4 years 2 days; or a total of 23 years 49 days, and to the fact that, when he completed his 2 years and 47 days in the Royal Garrison Regiment, he made application to join the Militia Reserve for 4 years on the understanding that he would be allowed to serve on till his 24 years were completed and thereby earn a life pension; that on 20th May last his 4 years expired, and he made application to re-engage to complete 4 more years, which would have made his total years' service 27 years and 49 days, and was told that he was too old to re-engage, and was thus deprived of his pension; and whether, seeing that his Militia Reserve pay was £1 10s. per quarter, on 1st April last he received his pay, £1 10s., on 20th May his time expired, and on 22nd May he received his discharge, he will grant him his pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane)No application for a pension from this man can be traced. The case will, however, be inquired into and the result of the inquiry will be notified to the hon. Member.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Bengal Indigo Industry—Admiralty Cloth Contract.
    *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will second the efforts the Bengal Government is making to assist the indigo industry in India by supplying to the Navy cloth dyed by natural indigo in the place of cloth dyed by products described as indigo dye, which in many cases have neither natural or, indeed, synthetic indigo in their composition.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The cloth and serge supplied to the Navy are at present required to be dyed with natural vat indigo, and nothing further could therefore be done in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

    Dockyard Appointments.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in filling lower positions in the Royal dockyards, such as chargemen, recorders, measurers, &c., selections are made from candidates who have qualified for higher positions; and, if not, on what grounds may candidates who have qualified for higher positions be rejected in favour of those who have not passed any qualifying examination.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The selection is carried out in strict accordance with Article 402 of the Home Dockyard Regulations and Article 117 of the Expense Accounts Instructions. These Articles are too long to read, but I am sending a copy to my hon. friend.

    Dockyard Competitive Examinations.
    MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state if it is a fact that in awarding marks to candidates for positions of draughtsmen, inspectors, &c, in His Majesty's dockyards as many as 20 per cent. of the full number obtainable at the competitive examinations may be bestowed on favoured candidates by official recommendation; and if, in the interest of efficiency and justice, their Lordships will consider whether it would be best that such recommended marks
    604
    should be abolished or at least reduced to a much lower maximum percentage of the number of marks obtainable by competition.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I presume my hon. friend refers to the marks allotted under Article 389 to denote the personal qualifications of the candidates for supervising and controlling those employed under them. The system was only recently revised, and no reason is now seen for making any alteration.

    Refrigerating Machinery for Ships' Magazines.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Blackpool division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed that all vessels in the Navy shall be furnished with refrigerating machinery for their magazines; and, if not, what classes of ships will have such machinery placed on board.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is proposed, as soon as possible, to fit all vessels other than torpedo craft with magazine cooling apparatus, with the exception of the special service vessels.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of the amount that will be required for this service during the current year?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON asked for notice of the Question.

    H.M.S. "Triumph."
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the date H.M.S. "Triumph" parted from the Channel Fleet; whether she has landed all her ammunition; and what is the anticipated interval she is expected to be absent from the date of parting.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The "Triumph" left the Channel Fleet for her usual refit on the 3rd June, and will be completed on the 20th July. Her ammunition has all been landed.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is this one of the extensive refits provided for in the Memorandum of the Admiralty of October, 1906, which provided that vessels

    605
    of the Channel Fleet requiring refitting should be temporarily replaced by vessels from the Home Fleet?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should like to refresh my memory as to that.

    British and German Navies.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the total increase or de crease in the aggregate personnel of the British and German Navies, including Reserves, as provided for in the Navy Estimates, 1907–8, over the numbers provided in 1004–5.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The not decrease in the aggregate personnel of the British Navy, including Reserves, is 3,000. The net increase in the active service numbers in the German Navy in the same period is 8,747. The numbers of the Reserves are not stated.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the aggregate forces disposed of by the British and German Navies, respectively, as provided for in the Estimates of 1907–8,reckoning permanent force and Reserves together; and whether he can state how many boys are included.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Numbers voted:—British Navy (active service and Reserves), 187,697; Gorman Navy (active service only, Reserves not published), 46,936, Boys included:—British, 4,905; German, 1,500.

    Naval Practice Ammunition.
    SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the animal consumption of shells for the guns of the Navy by target-firing, gun-practice; what is the annual wastage by deterioration; and what number of shells for each kind of gun is in stock at the present time.
    MR. EDMUND ROBRTSON: The approximate annual expenditure of shells for all practices is 47,000. This includes all guns from three-pounders upwards, but does not include 375,000 practice projectiles. The wastage from deterioration is practically nil In regard to the last part of the Question, it is not
    606
    customary to give details of our reserves of war material.

    War Office Lands at Kilcreggan.
    MR WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his Department got any valuation made before purchase of the fifty-two acres bought at Kilcreggan, Dumbartonshire, from the Duke of Argyll; if so, by whom; what was the valuation put on the land; and did it justify the purchase at 241 years purchase.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): A valuation was made of the land in question by the War Department consulting land agent, and by a private firm. It is not usual or desirable to disclose these valuations, but they were considered to justify the price agreed to.

    Militiamen's Wives.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardship caused to the wives of men belonging to those Militia battalions chosen for experimental long training; and whether separation allowances or any other grant will be made to assist them.
    MR. HALDANE: No representations of the nature referred to have reached me, and the case is not, in my opinion, one in which separation allowances or other grants of the kind would be appropriate.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is it not a fact that the long training which has been undergone by some of the Militia battalions as an experiment has caused considerable hardships amongst the wives and families of the men? Cannot something be done to make their lot a little easier?
    MR. HALDANE: I believe not. The men who took the six months training were mostly young men, and had not been led into the meshes of matrimony.

    Stage Soldiers and Sailors.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, despite the recent issue by the War Office of a memorandum to music hall

    607
    managers warning them against permitting at their halls any performances calculated to bring His Majesty's uniform into contempt, performances are still taking place at certain halls exceedingly offensive to His Majesty's Army; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
    MR. HALDANE: The memorandum referred to was one issued by the Home Office to the police authorities at the instance of this Department. I am not aware that any performances such as are alluded to are taking place.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I do not wish to give an advertisement by mentioning any name, but there is such a performance. Will the right hon. Gentleman let me tell him privately?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Tell us what hall you have been visiting.
    MR. HALDANE: More mischief would be done by taking proceedings than good gained.

    Soldier's War Pension.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of Richard Page, late of the 43rd Oxfordshire Light Infantry, who alleges that he is still suffering from the effects of disease contracted in South Africa, which prevents him, though he is not in receipt of a pension, from earning his living.
    MR. HALDANE: No application for a pension can be traced as having been received from this man; but if the noble Lord will furnish Page's address, together with any evidence that may be forthcoming to show that his present disability was caused by his service in South Africa, the case shall be inquired into.

    Indian Canal Colony Settlements.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any restriction is placed on native soldiers desirous of acquiring land in the new canal colonies, while clerks of the civil department have no such difficulty; and whether, as this is likely to have a bad effect on recruiting and the espirit de
    608
    corps of the men, will he take steps to remove such disabilities.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): I am not aware that native soldiers are at a disadvantage in obtaining grants of land in the canal colonies. In each colony a considerable area has been set aside for military colonists, the distribution being left to the military authorities. Reward grants to civil employees are subject to a similar restriction of area, and it is by no means the case that clerks in the civil departments obtain grants without difficulty.

    Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to receive the Report of the Committee appointed by the Transvaal Government to inquire into the whole question of the supply of labour for the mines; and will the Report when received be laid upon the Table of the House.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): I cannot at present say.

    Port of Spain Town Board.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to report as to the constitution of the nominated town board for Port of Spain and the length of time for which such board has been created.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Under the Port of Spain Town Board Ordinance, 1907, the town board will consist of eleven commissioners, to be nominated by the Governor, who shall be householders within the town or the waterworks districts. By "householder" is meant any male person of full age who pays rates or taxes in respect of property within the above area or who occupies a house within that area at a rental of not less than £20 a year. The Governor may appoint one of the members of the board as chief commissioner, and has selected Mr. Adam Smith, the secretary of the chamber of commerce, for the appointment. The ordinance does not expressly limit the length of time for which the

    609
    board is to last, owing, it is understood, to the difficulties which might arise on the expiration of a fixed term. On this point I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Answer of the 23rd of April. †

    Trinidad Riot.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to state the result of the investigation as to the riot that recently took place on the Perseverance estate, Couva, Trinidad, which resulted in the murder of a senior overseer named William McKenzie.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No answer has yet been received to the despatch addressed to the officer administering the government of Trinidad on this subject.

    Murderers of Mr. Veal.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the seven natives, lately sentenced to death in Natal for the murder of Mr. Veal during the recent rebellion, have been executed; if not, has any date been fixed for the execution or can he hold out any hope that the clemency of the Governor may yet be exercised.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The officer ad ministering the government of Natal has not yet informed the Secretary of State what decision has been come to in the matter. I may add that owing to Sir H. McCallum's departure the case was left to be dealt with by Mr. Beaumont, who is now administering the government, and whose substantive appointment is that of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

    Transvaal Loan.
    MR. ARKWRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before the pledge was given to guarantee the Transvaal loan of £5,000,000, the Prime Minister of Cape Colony and the Prime Minister of Natal were consulted.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    British Consulate at Kermanshah.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official informa-
    †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1562
    610
    tion of the British consulate at Kermanshah having been fired upon by Persians; whether any British-Indian garrison is maintained at this consulate; and what steps he intends to take to secure the safety of British subjects in that town.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative, but the fire was directed not against Englishmen but against Persian Party opponents, who had taken refuge in the Consulate. The Persian Government have expressed profound regret, and sent very strong orders to the Governor to punish the guilty persons and prevent a repetition of the outrage. The British Indian detachment at Kermanshah consists of one duffadar and seven sowars. No further steps appear necessary at present to secure the safety of British subjects.
    MR. LYNCHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any official information that Salar-ed-Dauleh, the brother of the Shah, had taken refuge at the British Embassy at Kermanshah, claiming asylum for himself and family; and, if so, what course the Government proposed to take in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not got any information that the Prince has taken refuge at Kermanshah. If the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper, I will make inquiry.

    Sugar Bounties—Government Despatch to the Brussels Convention.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that what purports to be a verbatim report of the despatch of His Majesty's Government to the Brussels Convention has been published in the Journal des Fabricants de Sucre of 12th June, he will now lay upon the Table the authenticated text of the English version of that despatch.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, sir.

    Brigandage in Turkey—Mr. Abbott's Ransom.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

    611
    if the sum of £15,000 paid by the Government for the ransom of Mr. Abbott has yet been paid by the Turkish Government; and, if not, when does he expect it will be paid.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The sum has not yet been paid by the Ottoman Government, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will not lose sight of the matter.

    The Hague Conference.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the attitude taken up by the Government on the subject of commerce destruction; and whether our representatives at The Hague Conference are prepared to advocate the immunity of private property at sea.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot make any statement upon this subject. It will, no doubt, be discussed at The Hague Conference, and it would not be desirable to anticipate that discussion by declaration, on behalf of individual governments.
    MR. ALDENasked the right hon. Gentleman whether our representatives at the Conference had any liberty of action or judgment with regard to this important question.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot, before the Conference is concluded, state what are the instructions given to the British representatives, and it would be very inconvenient, while the discussions are proceeding at the Conference, that there should be parallel discussions in the parliaments of the different countries represented.
    MR. BOWLESasked whether, in the event of any conclusion being come to on this matter, the Government would afford the House an opportunity of considering it before it was finally adopted.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot make any promise with regard to decisions come to at The Hague Conference. The questions are not far enough advanced for me to say whether they can be brought before the House of Commons before they are finally adopted or not.

    Royal Patriotic Fund.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the application for a grant of public money made last March to the Treasury by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, he will advise the distribution by that corporation of the funds remaining in their hands to the surviving widows and other beneficiaries for whom the moneys were subscribed, and to whom they properly belong.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): It is not within my province to offer advice to the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation as to the exercise of their statutory duties. The functions of the Treasury are limited by the Act, 3 Edw. VII., Cap. 20, to prescribing the form and providing for the audit of the accounts of the corporation.

    Pensions and Income Tax.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government has yet come to a decision as to whether the pensions of retired naval, military, police, and civil servants, as also other retirement allowances, are to be treated, in calculation for the new income-tax, as income earned during their years of service.
    MR. ASQUITH: The question is receiving careful consideration, and I shall be prepared to make a further statement upon it when the clause embodying the definition of "earned income" comes under discussion in Committee.

    Income Tax and Insurance Premiums.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will limit the amount of annual income to £2,000, or other figure, from which insurance premiums up to one-sixth are allowed to be deducted before paying income-tax; and if he will bring this into the Finance Bill of this session.
    MR. ASQUITH: The concession is one of long standing, and I do not see my way to proposing any modification of it in the Finance Bill now before Parliament.

    London Florists.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rules of the Factory Act have recently been applied to the case of florists in London; if so, whether the result will be to enforce the employment of foreign men instead of English women; and whether he is aware that the restrictions imposed by the Factory Act make it extremely difficult for florists to carry on their trade, owing to the perishable nature of flowers and the fact that they are required at very short notice, the demand also being uncertain in time, character, and quantity.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TUE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The hon. Member has no doubt in mind the recent case of Hoare v. Green in the High Court, which decided that the making of wreaths, crosses, bouquets, and the like was the making of an article, or adapting for sale of an article within the meaning of the Factory Act, and that where the substantial purpose for which any premises are used is the, exercise of manual labour in the making of such articles the provisions of the Act apply. Representations have been made to me in the sense suggested in the Question as to the effect of the decision, and the matter is now under consideration.

    Kynoch's Arklow Works.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the chairman of Kynoch, Limited has threatened to close their works in Arklow, Ireland, if the Home Department refuse to yield to their demands; whether he is aware that the same chairman was shown, before the Select Committee on War Office Contracts in 1900, to have used the threat to close down the Irish works in a few days as a means of obtaining contracts for cordite; whether he is aware that Kynoch, Limited, gave up manufacturing cordite in Ireland about 1900 owing to the quantity of cordite rejected by the War Office inspectors, the chief inspector of explosives having reported that in a number of lots of cordite there was found foreign matter, such as stones and nails; and whether the Home Department have any record showing what became of this quan-
    614
    tity of rejected cordite, and were they notified of its existence by the War Office.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Answers to the first and second parts of the Question are in the affirmative. The Answer to the third is that rejections by the War Office inspectors of cordite manufactured in Ireland occurred in 1899 owing to the presence of foreign matter, and in 1902 owing to low heat test, and that after the rejections in the latter year the firm gave up manufacturing cordite in Ireland. As to the fourth, the rejections which occurred in 1899 owing to the presence of foreign matter were not notified to the Home Office until some time after their occurrence, and the Department have no record to show what became of the rejected cordite.
    MR. BELLAIRSasked if in future the Department would take care that the War Office and Admiralty informed them of future rejections so as to prevent such explosives being sent out of the country.
    MR. GLADSTONEreplied in the affirmative.

    Case of Herbert Blake.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the sentence of two months imprisonment passed on Herbert Blake at Clerkenwell on the 14th instant for stealing two loaves; and whether, in view of the prisoner's character and previous record, and the exceptional circumstances under which the theft was committed, he will consider the advisability of reducing the sentence.
    MR. RICHARDSON: May I also ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Herbert Blake, carman, Goodinge Road, Islington, who on the 13th instant was sentenced to two months imprisonment with hard labour, at Clerkenwell police court, by Mr. d'Eyn-court, for stealing two loaves of bread value 9½d.; and whether, taking into account the prisoner's previous good character, he can see his way clear to order his immediate release.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made careful inquiries into this case, and I find that it was inadequately reported in the newspapers. The theft was not a single one; the man, while employed in a position of trust and earning good wages, systematically robbed his employers. I regret that in view of all the facts I do not feel able to advise any reduction of the sentence.
    MR. RICHARDSON: Were any other charges brought against this man at that time?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The charge was one of systematically robbing his employer, which had been going on for three weeks or so.
    MR. J. WARD: Was not the man actually charged with stealing two loaves value 9??d., and was it not for that that the sentence was passed?
    MR. GLADSTONE: As I have said the case was imperfectly reported. The man was robbing his employer and putting the money into his own pocket.
    MR. RICHARDSON: Was he charged with systematically robbing his employer? Was it a general charge, or a specific charge of stealing two loaves?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have told the hon. Member what was shown by the evidence and I see no reason to interfere. It was a specific charge, but the evidence showed that the robbery had been going on for seventeen days.
    MR. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the remarks of the magistrate in giving his decision? Would they not practically mean, if acted upon, the repeal of the First Offender's Act?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not agree with my hon. friend.

    Grant to Liverpool Distress Committee.
    MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, out of the sum of £105,420 distributed amongst the Distress Committees in the United Kingdom, the Liverpool Distress Committee have received a grant of only
    616
    £250; and if a Return will be furnished by the Local Government Board showing the grants made to the various Distress Committees, together with a statement of the facts in each case which led the Board to make the grants.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. In determining whether in any particular case a payment should be made out of the Grant, and, if so, to what amount, I took into account all the circumstances affecting it. I could not undertake to furnish a Return showing the facts in each instance which led to a payment being made.
    MR. HARMOOD - BANNER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider a grant of £250 very disproportionate for a population of 800,000?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The amount of money that was given in this case was ample for the piece of work proposed. Several of the schemes submitted were of a character for which I could make no grant of money either large or small.

    Coffee Adulteration.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the progressive decline in the consumption of coffee in this country is to some extent at least due to the practically unchecked use of chicory; whether he can see his way so to amend the law as to provide that, when the quantity of chicory in a mixture exceeds in quantity the coffee contained in such mixture, it shall be labelled chicory and coffee, the former word being printed in larger type, and, where coffee predominates, the word coffee being printed in larger type, or whether he will introduce legislation requiring the use of a label specifying the proportion of coffee and inferior substances contained in every admixture for sale.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am aware that allegations are made to the effect stated in the first part of the Question, but I am not able to state how far they are correct. I have received representations to show that the

    617
    present state of things as regards the sale of mixtures of coffee and chicory is not satisfactory, and I have noted the matter for investigation. I may point out that it was to some extent considered by the Select Committee on Food Adulterations in 1896, who, however, did not see their way to make any special recommendation on the subject.
    MR. REES: Is not this a matter of importance, not only to consumers of coffee, but also to British planters?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I agree with my hon. friend, and I should like to see some favourable opportunity of amending the Food and Drugs Act in this and many other particulars.

    Stowaways.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there are any regulations or instructions issued that ships registered as British must land any stowaway they may have on board at the first British port they call at, regardless of their nationality or port of origin.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): No regulations or instructions to the effect stated in the Question have been issued by the Board of Trade.
    MR. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the recent case of two stowaways landed at Dover in which the manager of the steamship company said they were bound by the regulations to land them?
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like notice of that Question.

    Australian Customs.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has now received information as to the action taken by the Australian Customs authorities under the Customs Act in charging duty upon certain British manufactures, viz. blacking and boot polishes, upon an arbitrary valuation of their own instead of upon the invoiced prices; if this treatment was only applied to British goods; and if he is aware that the Australian Customs authorities have now, upon the strong
    618
    complaint of the importers, reversed their decision and refunded the excess duty; and if he has obtained, or has taken measures to obtain, from the Australian Minister of Trades and Customs an assurance that such arbitrary treatment of British goods will not be repeated.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have been in consultation in regard to this Question with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has addressed a communication on the subject to the Commonwealth Government, but a reply has not yet been received.

    Rating of Telephone and Telegraph Wires.
    MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General why he declines to act on the Treasury Minute, dated 7th February, 1896, in reference to telegraph and trunk telephone wires and parochial and municipal rates, which directs that, in cases where higher contributions would otherwise be payable, the contributions shall be increased accordingly; and whether he is aware that all telegraph and trunk telephone wires erected since 1868 escape entirely from the payment of municipal and parochial rates.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Telegraph and telephone wires have always been regarded as on a different footing from other Government property in respect of contributions in lieu of rates, and I understand the Treasury are not prepared to sanction any departure from that practice. As regards the second part of the Question, the facts are not quite as represented by the hon. Member, inasmuch as contributions in lieu of rates are paid on the trunk telephone wires acquired from the National Telephone Company in 1896.
    MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether it was not a fact that in many districts not a penny of rates or taxes was received in respect of telephone wires.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if they were trunk telephone wires contributions were paid in lieu of rates. If the hon. Member could give him particulars of any case in which that had not been carried out he would look into it.

    Lodgers' Letters.
    MR. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will grant to lodgers giving notice of their change of residence the same facilities for the delivery of their letters as is now granted to householders.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to the Answer on the subject of the re-direction of lodgers' letters which I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the 16th of April last, of which I am sending a copy. †

    Bristol Post Office.
    MR. HOWELL DAVIES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when the additions to the Bristol post office, promised in the last session, are to be begun.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope that it will be possible to begin the building operations within the next four or five months.

    English Teachers' Salaries.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education the average annual salary and emoluments of principal teachers and assistants in English (including Welsh) national schools for men and for women teachers respectively.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The average salaries of certificated teachers for the statistical year ending 31st July, 1906, were as follows:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Head Masters

    163

    11

    11

    Assistant Masters

    116

    3

    9

    Head Mistresses

    112

    17

    8

    Assistant Mistresses -

    84

    17

    0

    Education Act in Wales.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the Education (Local Authority Default) Act, 1904, is now being enforced in any county in Wales or Monmouthshire; and, if not, whether all the local education authorities concerned are now fulfilling the financial
    †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 772
    620
    obligations imposed on them by the Act of 1902.
    MR. McKENNA: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. As to the second part of the Question, I have no reason to suppose that the authorities concerned are failing to fulfil the financial obligations imposed on them.

    West Ham Custom House Boys' School
    MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that on the 27th May, in the Borough of West Ham Custom House Boys' School, 113 children were present in a classroom recognised by the Board of Education as accommodating sixty; that on the same date in the Denmark Street Girls' School, ninety-one were present in a classroom accommodating sixty-three, and on the same date in the Drew Road Boys' School, ninety-nine were present in a class-room accommodating seventy; and that in the Water Lane Boys' School, a class of over 100 worked for a large part of each school day from 8th April to 10th May in a class-room accommodating sixty, the number on no occasion being less than ninety-five; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. McKENNA: I am informed that there is considerable overcrowding in some of the class-rooms in the West Ham Schools during the summer months. The causes of this overcrowding are extremely complicated and are fully dealt with in an Answer which will be, circulated with the Votes to-night. I am asking the local education authority to consider the advisability of changing the date of the educational year and of adding a class-room to certain of the schools.

    Registration of Teachers.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the probability that the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill may not be reached in time to be passed into law this session, he can state; what steps he proposes to take to provide for the continued registration of teachers either in accordance with existing regulations, or with the terms of Clause 12 of, that Bill.
    MR. McKENNA: I do not agree with the hon. Member in his estimate of the probability of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill becoming law this session; but in any case steps will be taken to provide for the continuance of the Teachers' Registration Council, as at present constituted, for such further period as may be found necessary.

    London Park Policemen.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that policemen doing park duty receive 35s. per week, and also the usual allowance of 2s. 10d. per week for rent and fuel, making in all 37s. 10d. per week, whereas the park-keepers in Kensington Gardens, Regent's, St. James's and Greenwich Parks only receive 26s. per week, although they have to perform the same duties as the police, and, if so, if he will favourably consider the claims of these men with a view to some increase in their pay, especially in view of the great saving effected in the past twenty years by the gradual transference of regular police work to the park-keepers.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. HARCOURT, Lancashire, Rossendale): No doubt the Metropolitan Police employed in the Royal Parks receive a higher rate of pay than the park-keepers; but I am not able to admit the comparison. The police are on service at an earlier period of life than the park-keepers, who enter on their duty not much before the time that the police take their discharge, and are retained to a much later age. They have also (in many cases) the prospect of promotion to a lodge.

    Parliamentary Blue-books,
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can suggest to the Comptroller of the Stationery Office the desirability of following the practice of the Congress of the United States of America and publishing official books in great request, such as the Imperial Conference proceedings, in handy octavo volumes instead of in the cumbrous quarto form, difficult of use in public meetings, and so heavy as quickly to burst the stitching. May I call attention to the unwieldy size of the Blue-book I have in my hand: it weighs
    622
    3lbs. 8ozs. and it is almost impossible to use it.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): Yes, and if it were in octavo form it would be four times the thickness.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: You could have it in several volumes.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The point raised by the hon. Member was dealt with in paragraphs 28–29 of the Report of the Select Committee on Official Publications of last session. The recommendation of the Committee is still under consideration; but I do not feel sure that the hon. Member's suggestion would meet with general approval.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How long is the matter likely to remain under consideration. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the American practice by which Blue-books are issued in handy form, each volume dealing in a specific branch?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that has been known to us since last session. The consideration must go on until a decision is arrived at. I cannot say when that will be.

    United Patriots National Benefit Society.
    MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask MR. Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Secretary to the United Patriots National Benefit Society has been apprehended on a charge of fraudulently dealing with £5,484 of the funds of this society; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the prosecution undertaken by the Public Prosecutor.
    *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): This matter should come before the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will take my instructions if he thinks necessary.

    Chicago Butter.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the last Report of His Majesty's consul in

    623
    Chicago, to the large increase in the importation into this country from that city of butter, a great deal of which is process or renovated butter, which has been melted, the butter fat drawn off, the caseine thrown out, and the fat re-churned with milk; whether he is aware this butter has to bear the mark "renovated butter," a mark which is removed on its arrival in this country; and whether this renovated butter is sold as butter in this country; and, if so, whether the Butter and Margarine Bill now before the House will prevent its importation; and, if not, under what name will it be sold, whether margarine or some other name approved by the Board of Agriculture.
    THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.): Our attention has been called to the Report to which my hon. friend refers. I understand that it is the case that renovated butter is required by United States law to be marked as such, but no case has been brought to our notice in which the mark has been removed in this country, or in which renovated butter has been sold as butter. The Butter and Margarine Bill will not prevent the importation of this article, but it will have to be sold under a special name, and with a description of its character to be approved by the Board.

    Scottish Teachers Salaries.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG:I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland the average annual salary and emoluments of principal teachers and assistants in Scottish national schools, for men and for women teachers respectively.
    THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland; for MR. Sinclair): For 1905–6, the average salaries of Scottish Certificated teachers were:—principal men teachers,, £180 3s. 6d.; principal women teachers. £91 15s. 10; assistant men teachers, £124 9s. 11d.; assistant women teachers, £76 15s. 4d. In addition, occupation of houses free of rent was given to 1,592 principal men teachers, 523 principal women teachers, six assistant men teachers, and forty-five assistant women teachers,
    MR. SLOAN: Will the hon. Gentleman send a copy of the Answer to the Irish Secretary?
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will convey that request to my right hon. friend.

    Barlinnie Prison, Glasgow.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet received the petition from the warders and staff of Barlinnie Prison, which was despatched fifteen months ago; and whether he proposes to take any action to redress the grievances set forth therein.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for MR. SINCLAIR):The petition has received my right hon. friend's careful consideration, but it has not been found possible to provide the large proportionate increase to the staff which would be required to institute the reduction of hours desired.

    Aberdeen Detective's Pension.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the case of Detective Alexander Smith, who retired last year from the Aberdeen police force on pension; whether he is aware that shortly before his time expired he was suspended, and was denied an opportunity of proving his innocence by the chief constable; whether the chief constable has, since Detective Smith left the force, given him a bad character, in consequence of which he has lost several appointments; and whether, considering this and similar cases, he will take steps to curtail the power of chief constables in the future, so as to make all acts regarding the men under them subject to an appeal to the magistrates or the Secretary of State.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for MR. SINCLAIR): My right hon. friend has made inquiries, and has been informed that Detective Smith, who had already sent in his resignation, was suspended for reasons which were hold to be well founded. During suspension Smith received full pay and afterwards was entitled to his pension. It is not the fact that the chief constable has given Smith a bad character or

    625
    volunteered information, but when the applications referred to were under consideration, he was applied to by the Court authorities for information as to the circumstances of Smith's suspension, and in this connection he considered it his duty to supply the information desired. My right hon. friend does not consider that it is necessary to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member in the last part of his Question.

    Belfast Strike.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Steam Shipping Company have a number of imported labourers living on a vessel in the harbour; whether he is aware that a number of such labourers are reported to be seriously ill, and that several have already been removed to Belfast Hospital: and what steps are proposed to be taken to ensure that this menace to the health of the city is abated.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take steps to see that the medical officer of health for the city of Belfast is informed that several cases of fever have occurred amongst the imported labourers at present on board a vessel in Belfast Harbour; and whether he will take such action as to ensure that the medical officer of health carries out his duties in an efficient and impartial manner regardless of the interests of shipping and other companies.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): I will answer the hon. Member's two Questions together. The Local Government Board have had a special investigation made by one of their medical inspectors. About 150 imported labourers are living in a steamship in Belfast Harbour. Two men have had to be removed to hospital for surgical treatment in consequence of accidents, but no case of infectious disease has occurred, and none of the men have been seriously ill. The medical officer acting for the port sanitary authority visits the ship daily, and both the public health authority of the city and the port sanitary authority are fully alive to the
    626
    necessity of exercising a strict super vision over the vessel. The Local Government Board's medical inspector found the ship to be very clean. The total number living on board, including crew, is 215. The ship is licensed by the Board of Trade for 356. The Local Government Board are satisfied that the facts of the case do not constitute a menace to the public health of the city, and that no circumstance calling for their intervention has arisen.
    MR. SLOAN: Is there any foundation for the imputation on the medical officer contained in the second Question?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have no reason to believe he is open to any imputation whatever.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Have not the Belfast Steamship Company taken every possible precaution on behalf of the workmen?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am only concerned with the medical officer and port authority, and; I am satisfied that they have done their duty.

    Derrinlough Grazing Farm Dispute
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a grazing farm on the property of Lord Rosse at Derrinlough, near Birr, occupied by MR. Parsons, of Shinrone, has been cleared of all its stock by a crowd of persons; and whether any persons are being prosecuted in connection with this occurrence.
    MR. BIRRELL: On 17th instant MR. John Parkinson's cattle were driven off his farm at the place mentioned. The police came promptly to the scene, and restored the cattle to the farm. The evidence which is available against several persons is being investigated with a view to considering the question of a prosecution.

    Roxburgh Grazing Farm Dispute.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received reports of the driving of the cattle off the land of MR. Blake, near Roxburgh, on Friday, the 14th instant, and of damage

    627
    caused by a crowd of persons to the fences of the farm; and whether any persons have been prosecuted for this offence.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Friday, the 14th instant, the cattle were driven off a farm belonging to Colonel Arthur Courtenay, at Ballyshea, near Roxburgh; whether he is aware that Colonel Courtenay has sold most of his farms to the tenants, under the Ashbourne Act, at eighteen years purchase; and whether he is prepared to assist Colonel Courtenay in any steps he may take for the defence of his property.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will answer these two Questions together. The police have reported that cattle were driven off the farms of MR. Blake and Colonel Courtenay on the same occasion, and apparently by the same persons. Damage was done to a wall bounding MR. Blake's farm. It is, I understand, the fact that Colonel Courtenay has sold the greater part of his property under the Ashbourne Act. No persons have been prosecuted for the offence, as the police have no evidence against the offenders. The police will afford all possible protection to the farms of these gentlemen and others.

    Hope Estate, Castleblayney.
    MR. McKEAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Gresham Insurance Company holds a mortgage on the Hope estate, at Castleblayney, in the county of Monaghan, and that the agent of the company, who is also acting as agent for the estate, has recently introduced a new system of rent collecting, involving, along with other hardship, the payment by the tenants of their rents half yearly instead of yearly as hitherto, and in addition has forced a number of town park tenants to hold for the future on the eleven months system, and where they have refused to do so has evicted them without compensation; and whether, in view of these facts and the discontent prevailing in the locality in consequence of them, and in view of a similar state of things existing on other estates in Ireland, he will, at an early date, introduce
    628
    a Bill dealing with the matter, or insert a clause in his promised Evicted Tenants Bill to correct abuses such as those above referred to.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question, but even assuming the facts to be as stated, the Government would have no power to interfere. The matter appears to be one which concerns the ordinary legal rights of landlords and tenants. It is not intended to insert a clause on the subject in the Evicted Tenants Bill.

    Limavady Post Office.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a memorial from the Limavady Urban District Council protesting against the proposal to reduce Limavady from the status of a head office to that of a sub-office under the direction of the postmaster of Londonderry, almost twenty miles distant; whether he is aware that postal business at Limavady is rapidly increasing, the staff now numbering nineteen, against five fifteen years ago; and whether, in view of the facts, he will favourably consider the request of the memorialists and allow Limavady to remain a head office.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received a memorial from the Limavady Urban District Council objecting to the proposal to reduce Limavady to the status of a sub-office. It seems to have been written under a misapprehension of the facts. The Londonderry district now completely surrounds the Limavady district, and the office itself, the rural posts, and the sub-offices can be more efficiently supervised from Londonderry. The change will in no way impair the postal facilities of the district, but on the contrary will increase the efficiency of the local service. The postal work at Limavady is not at present increasing.
    MR. BARRIEasked if the effect would not be to delay the mails by some hours.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The information I have is that the postal facilities of the district will not be adversely affected.
    MR. SLOAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to receive further representations on the subject?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will carefully consider any representations made through hon. Members.

    Royal Patriotic Fund.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what is the total amount of the funds remaining in the hands of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; for what specific purposes were these funds subscribed; and are they so administered that the actual persons for whom each separate fund was raised are in receipt of the same; or are other persons not entitled, and not contemplated by the donors, receiving pensions taken from the aforesaid funds.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I am informed that my hon. friend will find in Paragraph 9 of the Second Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation to the King the separate and total amounts of the funds remaining in the hands of the Corporation on 31st December, 1905; and in Appendix 11. of same Report the origin and objects of the various funds. He will also find in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the First, and Paragraph 14 of the Second, Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation to the King the general principles and conditions of administration adopted by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation in regard to the various funds now under their management under the powers conferred upon the Corporation by Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903. I am further informed that the Third Annual Report of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the year 1906 will shortly be issued and available to the hon. Member as a Parliamentary Paper.
    MR. BYLES: Is my right hon. friend aware that the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation has been begging of the Treasury for funds for widows, when they have stored up very large sums of money which were given for these very widows, who are now dying off long before they get their money?

    Grants to Distress Committees.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to allot the same amount of money, viz., £200,000, this year for the purpose of assisting distress committees under The Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905, as was allocated last year; and can he give an assurance that this year it will all be spent.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I understand that communications are still passing between the Departments concerned, so that I cannot at present give a definite Answer.

    London Reforms.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, although the Government has now been in office for over eighteen months, nothing has yet been done as regards the legislative reforms needed for the metropolis; and can he hold out any hope that any of the following measures will be introduced either this session or next, and, if so, which, viz., Registration Reform and Extension of the Hours of Polling, with all London elections to be held on the same day, the restoration of an ad hoc authority to have charge of London's education, Taxation of Ground Values, and an Amendment of The Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905.
    I beg also to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in London owing to the fact that the Equalisation of Rates Bill, promised in the King's Speech last year, was not introduced last year; and whether he can hold out any hope that it will be introduced this year.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are well aware of the importance of these questions affecting London, and I can assure the hon. Member that they are not being neglected.
    MR. LEAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give amore definite reply. The people of London were much interested in these matters.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So are we. If I had a more definite reply to give I should give it.

    Transvaal Loan.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what urgent necessity there is for the Government at the present time to guarantee and make the issue of £5,000,000 Transvaal loan, to the prejudice of the holders of Government and other stocks in this country; and if, under the circumstances, he will promise that the loan shall at any rate be postponed until next year.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:The time and manner of issuing the loan are still under consideration, and it would be premature at this moment to make any announcement on the subject.
    MR. FELLasked whether the offer of the Government to guarantee this loan had not had a prejudicial effect upon the price of Consols.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of it. It is not a question connected with my department.

  THE HOUSE OF LORDS RESOLUTION.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask you, MR. Speaker, a Question regarding a matter on the Notice Paper to-day, and it is, whether the effect of the presentation of a Bill of which the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone has given notice† will prevent the discussion on Monday of the Motion‡ which stands in my name for that day?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Reluctantly, I feel compelled to answer that Question in the affirmative. The rule against anticipation is well known, and I cannot discriminate between Resolutions put down by the Government and Resolutions put down by a private Member. The right hon. Gentle man will, I have no doubt, remember an occasion before Easter when something
  † Bill so to restrict the power of the House of Lords to alter or reject Bills passed by the House of Commons as to secure that, within the limits of a single Parliament, the final decision of the House of Commons shall prevail.
  ‡ That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other house to alter or reject Bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a Commons shall prevail.
  632
  of the same sort occurred. A Bill was given notice of with the view of preventing a Resolution being taken. On that occasion I was obliged to hold that the fact that notice had been given of a Bill prevented the Resolution coming on. I may add this, that the rule, however good it was originally, is liable to be stretched, and may become a considerable abuse.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: That being your opinion, Sir, I venture to make an appeal to the noble Lord that he should not proceed with the presentation of his Bill. I congratulate him upon having found an opportunity of giving a living instance to the House of the mischief which he himself has been somewhat forward to denounce. I find that on the 27th March, just before Easter, the Member for Norwood moved a Resolution in these words —
  "That to put a Motion on the Order Paper of this House or to introduce a Bill so as to prevent discussion in this House of Motions for which precedence has been obtained in the ballot, or of definite matters of urgent public importance, is hurtful to the usefulness of this House and an infringement of the rights of its Members."
  That Motion was agreed to by the House and the noble Lord spoke in strong terms in its favour. Therefore, I cannot really believe that he wishes himself to commit an offence which he regards as so contradictory to the rights and privileges of Members of this House. I attribute to him a better, and, I think, a higher motive —namely, to show the House the intolerable use which can be made of the rule as it stands. It cannot be his desire to put off the discussion on Monday. I do not think that is his desire.
  LORD R. CECIL: Hear, hear.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the front Opposition Bench or any part of the House desire that which would not only cause embarrassment to Members, but would further delay the discussion of a matter which, judging from the Questions frequently addressed to me, many Members think has been delayed already too long. Therefore, I would appeal to the noble Lord to be content with the exhibition he has made of the state of affairs, and of the length to which this rule may be,

  633
  I will not say abused, but stretched, and not to proceed further. Because if he does proceed further, and if he does go on and presents his Bill, and fixes a day for it, we are not left entirely without remedy. We should propose in that case to have a sitting on Saturday [An Hon. Member. Why not Sunday?] or on Monday, to move, at the beginning of business, at the same time suspending the 11 o'clock rule, a Resolution such as this: — "That the discussion of the Motion relating to the House of Lords, standing in the name of the Prime Minister, be not precluded by any Bill appointed for the consideration of the House." But I hope we shall not be obliged to resort to that means of getting over the difficulty. The noble Lord having shown us the mischief that is capable of being done by the rule, I propose he should now withdraw and leave the impression upon the House which, no doubt, he wished to make and has made. We have been actively engaged in consultation, and in seeking suggestions from many quarters of the House, as to the proper mode of dealing with this question. The House will remember that on the occasion referred to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government would see what could be done in the matter, and he said they would only move in the matter if they found a general consent to the proposed alteration. It is that general consent which may possibly be a little difficult to create, but, subject to that, we are bound by what my right hon. friend said, and we are induced to proceed in the matter by our own strong opinion on the subject.
  LORD R. CECILassured the Prime Minister that he had correctly interpreted his action. Nothing was further from his wish, or the wishes of any one sitting in that quarter of the House, than to postpone the discussion of the Resolution upon the House of Lords of which the Prime Minister had given notice for Monday next. But some of them felt that they had not been fairly treated by the Government in regard to the Resolution of March 27th. The House would recollect that on March 27th last —nearly three months ago — a Motion was made by his hon. friend the Member for Norwood, assented to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and unani-
  634
  mously passed, directed against two evils. The first evil was the setting down of Bills so as to preclude the discussion of Motions, and the second evil was the setting down of Motions so as to preclude the discussion, upon Motions for the adjournment of the House, of matters of urgent public importance. Both of those evils were specifically dealt with by the Motion of his hon. friend. They certainly understood that the Government would without any delay bring forward a Standing Order dealing with those two evils. That was on March 27th, and since then he had addressed three questions to the Government, and the hon. Member for Norwood had addressed another, asking about that expected Standing Order. He remembered very well being reproved by the Prime Minister for his "impatience," as the right hon. Gentleman called it. He was thus reproved on April 24th. Now, at last, within the last day or two, there had been an attempt made, but he understood the Government would not make any proposal to deal with the great evil relating to the blocking of Motions for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing matters of urgent public importance. Unless that evil were dealt with, the Government would not be carrying out the wishes of the House as expressed by the Resolution of March 27th. Unless the Government gave him some assurance that they intended to deal with that evil in the spirit of the Resolution of March 27th, he should feel it his duty to go on with his Bill. He had no desire whatever to interfere with the ordinary proceeding next Monday, and he trusted his offer would meet with a favourable response from the Government. He had handed to the Government his suggestion for the new Standing Order.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord does not give a quite accurate description of the obligation of the Government. It was not that we should deal with the matter by placing some amended rule or rules before the House, but that we should endeavour to find out whether there was some way of dealing with this matter which would secure the assent of the House generally. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was most guarded in the language he used, said that we should not attempt this subject

  635
  at all if it would lead to any expenditure of time, but if we should find a general agreement upon some remedy, then we would take part in proposing that remedy to the House. We are now engaged in doing that, but it is a much more complicated matter than would at first sight appear. No harm has been done to anyone by the delay, and I hope the noble Lord will not put himself in the extraordinary position of committing the very offence which he has himself denounced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR.: I had to consider this subject when I occupied the position of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly I did not find it easy of solution. But the right hon. Gentleman has not really touched the gravamen of my hon. friend's charge, which, as I understand it, is that the Government entered into a pledge before Easter to deal immediately with the subject ["No"] —I do not say to bring in at once a Resolution of their own, but surely there was no doubt that they did suggest to the House in accepting the Resolution that they meant to act upon it. Acting upon it may be, and is, I believe, actually interpreted by the Prime Minister as meaning only that they should enter into negotiations with various parties in the House to see whether a common agreement could be come to. Let us put the pledge at that relatively low level. I was not present at the debate, and do not know whether those who were think that the pledge ought to be put as low as that. For my part, I am quite ready to take it provisionally at the level at which the Prime Minister has put it, which is that the Government should at once consider the matter and bring it before various sections of the House to see whether some common understanding could be arrived at. Certainly I have never heard anything of those negotiations until yesterday. I understand that yesterday the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury approached my right hon. friend the Whip of this Party and had a certain conversation with him, which I presume was designed to arrive at a common understanding. But that is three months after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I cannot really understand why some things are decided on so hastily by the
  636
  Government, while other things take so interminable a time in the process of gestation. They can cook up a Land Bill in a few days, but with regard to a single Standing Order dealing with a single issue it apparently takes three months of consideration before the negotiations are begun on which the ultimate solution depends. That is a very extraordinary proceeding, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he can bring so embarrassing a state of things to an end by a Saturday sitting it seems to me that would be, perhaps, the best course to take. I do not think the alternative of sitting up late on Monday night is a very good one, but even that may, perhaps, be better than allowing a situation, which everyone must admit has become very acute, to continue longer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have some explanation to offer. I am bound to say I think the whole course the Government have pursued is one that demands much fuller explanation.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.): As the Member of the Government who is responsible I should like to recall what was actually said by me. After expressing general and, indeed, complete sympathy with the Motion of the hon. Member for Norwood, I said that, in the interests of fair discussion and the dignity of the House of Commons, it was high time the Government met the evil complained of. I went on to say that it was not very easy to say what form precisely the remedy should take, because it was quite obvious that the practice which permitted a Member to get up, and by moving the adjournment of the House, occupy several hours of a sitting, was quite as hostile to the interests of the House as the one they were condemning. Whatever remedy might be devised they must take care not to introduce another practice equally prejudicial and inconvenient to the House. And now comes the so-called pledge. Subject to that qualification, I said we thought that in a matter of this kind, whatever was proposed should be by general consent of both sides of the House, and that it should not be a matter of controversial discussion between the two sides or between the various sections. So that not only did I not

  637
  pledge the Government to take any direct action, but I said it was a condition precedent to any effective action being taken that general assent should be arrived at. I am sorry to say that that assent has not yet been created.
  Lord R. CECIL: You have not asked for it.
  MR. ASQUITH: In regard to what took place yesterday, I am told by the Prime Minister that it was done without any knowledge or suspicion of the noble Lord's intention to bring on this Motion to-day. It was the result of somewhat prolonged consideration, and an attempt to deal with a very difficult matter, which does not admit of summary solution. I do not think the Government can be said not to have fulfilled any pledge or any expectation. In order to avoid any misapprehension, I wish to point out that what the Prime Minister said about a Saturday sitting did not refer to the introduction of a new Standing Order, but to a Motion ad hoc for the purpose of preventing this Bill from interfering with the discussion of the Government's Resolution.
  Lord E. CECIL: I cannot regard what has fallen from the Government as in any way satisfactory, and I must proceed with the Bill.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (RESTRICTION OF POWERS) BILL.
  "So to restrict the power of the House of Lords to alter or reject Bills passed by the House of Commons as to secure that, within the limits of a single Parliament, the final decision of the House of Commons shall prevail," presented by Lord Robert Cecil; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]

  IMPORTED WATCH-CASES BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 207.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Leeds (South Parade Chapel) Charity, the Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle, Schoolroom, &c.) Charity, the Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity, and the Board of Education (Hulme Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bill): MR. Lough; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bills): MR. McKenna.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Criminal Appeal Bill): MR. Silcock; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Criminal Appeal Bill): MR. Atherley Jones.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Sir John Benn, Major McMicking, MR. Munro Ferguson, and MR. Whitehead; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Sir John Bethel), MR. Guest, MR. Wedgwood, and MR Soares.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  SUPPLY [11TH JUNE] [13TH] ALLOTTED DAY].
  Resolutions reported.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,996,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,060,000, be granted to His Majesty,

  639
  to defray the Charge for Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  (3)"That a sum, not exceeding £1,671,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Armaments and Engineer Stores, including Technical Committees, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  (4)"That a sum, not exceeding £2,436,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Barrack Construction, for Purchases of Land, and for.Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad (including Staff in connection therewith), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  First Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. BOWLESmoved that the debate upon the Motion be adjourned. He said that they had had only five or six hours notice that this very important matter was to be brought on. The subject, in which a great many hon. Members in all quarters of the House took a great interest, was a matter of much perplexity, and it seemed to him an altogether unwarrantable proceeding that the Government, practically without notice, should bring forward at the last moment so important a Vote. He could not conceive why the House of Commons should have been so treated; he was certain there were a great many Members who desired to speak upon the subject but who, ignorant of the fact that it was to be the first Order of the day, were not present.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY (St. Andrews Burghs), seconded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned." — (MR. Bowles.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BAN HERMAN, Stirling Burghs)replied that the hon. Gentleman had not
  640
  perhaps been informed, but he saw no particular reason why he should be. It was impossible for the House to expect that they could communicate such minute details to every Member of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had been told two days previously that this Vote would be the first to be taken that day unless it could be arranged for it to be taken the previous night, so that the Colonial Vote could be the first Order.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that the first notice he had of the matter was given him at 11 o'clock on Wednesday night by the Junior Lord of the Treasury, and obviously it was impossible for him to inform his friends that it was coming on as the first Order that day. He quite understood why the Government had brought it, forward; they wanted the money and were bound to get it somehow. No doubt his friends had asked for the Colonial Vote for some time past, as they were anxious to discuss important matters connected with it, and it was very hard that it should be put off in favour of such questions as Woolwich Arsenal, which might occupy the greater part of the afternoon. It was impossible to deal with important subjects like this at a moment's notice.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEreminded the right hon. Gentleman that two days ago he had suggested to him in his room that an arrangement might be made that the Colonial Vote should be taken first on Thursday by allowing the report of these Votes to be got through on Wednesday. The suggestion was that the Third Reading of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill should be concluded in time to enable the two Report Stages to be taken on the Wednesday evening, and thus enable the Colonial Vote to be considered first on the Thursday. The Opposition had therefore ample notice that the Report Stages were intended to be taken to-day, and the right hon. Member undertook to consider the suggestion.
  Sir A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that it was true that the hon. Gentleman came to him. The Whips frequently came to him about one of two matters —either

  641
  that they should rise early and go home to dinner, or that they should bring on contentious business after eleven o'clock at night. He always refused to have anything to do with the requests in his official capacity, saying that he always referred such questions to his leader. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman
  would agree with him that he gave no pledge on the subject under discussion, but said he would refer the matter to his leader.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 62; Noes, 239. (Division List No. 247.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood.Rt Hn.Sir Alex F.

  Craig.Captain James(Down,E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Balfour,Rt HnA.J(City Lond.)

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Parker.Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease,Herbert Pike( Darlington

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gretton, John

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt.Hon.Victor CW.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hervey,F.W.F(Bury S.Edm'ds

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Hills, J. W.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon. Col.W

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Clark,George Smith(Belfast,N.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, N.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr. Bowles and Viscount Turnour.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Agnew, George William

  Causton.Rt Hn. RichardKnight

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Gill, A. H.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ginnell, L.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone,Rt. Hn.HerberJohn

  Asquith,Rt.Hn Herbert Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Baring.Godfrey( Isle of Wight)

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barker, John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gulland, John W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beauchamp, E.

  Corbett,CH(Sussex,E Grinst'd

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Bell, Richard

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cox, Harold

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Belloc, Hilaire JosephPeter R.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets.S.Geo.

  Crombie, John William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bennett, E N.

  Crooks, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Billson, Alfred

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Henderson, Arthur Durham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Herbert Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brace, William

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Branch, James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Brigg, John

  Dickinson,W.H.(St. Pancras,N

  Hodge, John

  Bright, J. A.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hogan, Michael

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Brunner,J. F. L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Buxton, Rt. Hn.Sydney Charles

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Cameron, Robert

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanley.Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly,James( Roscommon, N

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Summerbell, T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutherland!, J. E.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

  Tennant,Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Lever,A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Priestley,W;E.B.(Bradford, E.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Thorne, William

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Toulmin, George

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rees, J. D.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Verney, F. W.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Vivian, Henry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Walters, John Tudor

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Richardson, A.

  Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds,S.)

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson,Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Waring, Walter

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson,Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd')

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Watt, Henry A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Weir, James Galloway

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Marnham, F. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Massie, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Menzies, Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Seddon, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Williamson, A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Murray, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Nicholls, George

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Winfrey, R.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Snowden, P.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES —Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Soaress, Ernest J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Third Resolution read a second time.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Sir F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman would remember that some weeks ago he put a question to him in regard to contracts for beer supplied to the Royal Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman informed him that the contract had been given to the lowest tenderers, viz., Messrs. Meux & Co. He then asked if the First Lord of the Admiralty was interested in Messrs. Meux & Co.'s undertaking, and the right hon. Gentleman said that that was not a proper question to put. As he was not perfectly certain on the matter he asked no further Question, but since then he had ascertained that the noble Lord was really interested in this -firm, and that the Question he
  644
  put to the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified. He did not want to raise any question of bad faith, but he would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it wise that a firm in which the head of the Admiralty was interested should be allowed to tender for Admiralty contracts.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. Edmund Robertson, Dundee): was understood to say that he did not know that the First Lord of the Admiralty was a shareholder in this particular company. It was a small matter in proportion to the Vote, but he would answer the question at once.
  [Cries of: "We cannot hear a word."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am sorry I have not made myself heard, but I will do my best. I accept the statement that my noble friend Lord Tweed-mouth is interested as a shareholder in that particular company, and that company has been successful in obtaining the contract, for the supply of beer. I do not see any reason why, if the First Lord in a shareholder in the company, it should preclude the company from receiving the contract. The First Lord has nothing to do with the contracts; the responsibility for them rests with one of the heads of the Department. At this point I may be allowed to say that, having replied to the question of the hon. Baronet, this does notarise upon the Vote at all. There is no item for beer in the Vote at all, and it is wholly out of order, though I have given this explanation in answer to the question of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I take some interest in the question which has been raised by the hon. Baronet, because in 1900 I well remember that a long and bitter attack was directed especially against a right hon. relative of my own, and against myself, in connection with companies in which we were shareholders. On that occasion a Motion was made which received the support of not absolutely the whole, but nearly all the then Opposition, including the Secretary of State for War, who not merely voted but spoke in favour of it, and who laid down that it was the duty of a Minister of the Crown, who was in any way interested in a company contracting with the Government, to declare his interest to the Crown before accepting office. Now that the then Opposition have had an opportunity of putting their principles into practice, have they exacted the declaration which they then demanded, and, if that declaration has been exacted, how is it that the Financial Member of the Board of Admiralty, who is personally responsible for this contract, has not the information which, in the opinion of his Government, as declared in their Opposition days, is material to the decision upon a contract? I had no knowledge that this question would be raised, or I would have had ready to my hand the speech which the
  646
  Secretary for War made upon that occasion, and which I am not likely to forget. The Secretary for War went beyond the Resolution, and declared that it was improper for any Minister to be interested, not merely as a director, but as a shareholder, in a contract with a Government Department. I thought the Secretary of State's doctrine absurd at the time, and I thought it was used as a weapon against political opponents — a weapon which any gentleman ought to be. ashamed to employ. I know that now they are responsible they have cast aside the views which they then expressed, and gone back to the principle which they then denounced, and which, I think, is not open to the animadversions they then passed upon it. For my part, I think it would be absurd to exclude this company from this contract merely because the First Lord, from a long family connection I believe, or at any rate for many years, has had some interest in the company, and I need not assert that nothing I have said is to be treated as in any way impugning the conduct of either the First Lord or the right hon. Gentleman opposite or his advisers at the Admiralty. I believe them all to be above suspicion, but I call attention to the fact that now right hon. Gentlemen opposite have the opportunity of carrying out the principles which for the purpose of attacking their political opponents they have professed in the past, they do not do so, but that, having served the dirty purpose for which it was needed at that time, the principle is now laid on the shelf.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): The recollection of past emotions has caused the right hon. Gentleman wholly to forget the real point which was raised at that time, and wholly to overlook the fact that there is not one penny for beer in the whole of this Vote, so that a discussion on the general principle becomes quite irrelevant. On the point that has been raised, let me remind the House what was the doctrine we laid down at that time, or which we tried to lay down, and what I think is a very right and proper doctrine to lay down. It was not, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that anybody who is a shareholder.

  647
  in a company would by that fact be precluded from holding office if that company contracted with the Government. Obviously a person may hold preference shares in the London and North Western Railway Company as a trustee, or in some other capacity, and know nothing of what is going on. What we did lay down is a doctrine very different from that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Allow me to read the words which the Secretary for War used in 1900—
  " The criticism we make is that these things produce unrest and uneasiness in the public mind, and they afford a bad example. [An HON. MEMBER: What things?] The things are the holding of shares, or being indirectly interested in the shares of companies which contract with the Government, "†
  MR. HALDANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the context and see what the companies were? They were small private companies, which for purposes of convenience had been turned from private partnerships into, not public companies, but private companies. [An HON. MEMBER: Meux's is a private company.] The shares in Meux's are issued to the public. ["No, no!"]
  SIR F. BANBURY: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is in error. The ordinary shares in Meux's were never issued to the public; all that was issued to the public were the debentures.
  MR. HALDANE: I only speak from the most vague knowledge. The private ordinary shares in Meux's are far behind the enormous mass of shares issued to the public, and I believe that Meux's ordinary shares have not paid any profit for many years past. I believe that Meux's have not paid a farthing on ordinary shares for years and years past. [An HON. MEMBER: "What difference does that make?"] That makes all the difference. A private partnership may for purposes of convenience be turned into a joint stock company. Nobody has at any time laid down that the mere fact of somebody happening to hold shares in the London & North Western Railway Company, for instance, prevents
  † See (4) Debates, lxxxviii, 453
  648
  his contracting for the conveyance of troops. Dealing with these private companies which had taken over private partnerships, what I did say was that the connection of a Minister with one of these companies was likely to create unrest and uneasiness in the public mind. To that I still adhere.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no wish to continue this controversy, but with the leave of the House, I would like to show that what the right hon. Gentleman states was not the question raised. One of the companies might come under his description, but I should not admit its accuracy even in that case. But none of the other companies in which our interest was challenged, even my holding shares as a trustee for others without any personal benefit, in Kynoch's for instance, have the smallest resemblance to the imaginary picture which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn, nor are they compatible with the words I have quoted.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURasked why the Secretary to the Admiralty was not acquainted with the facts connected with the contract in question. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was unaware that the First Lord held shares in the company, and though it was three weeks since the incident was first brought to notice the Secretary to the Admiralty was still without knowledge on the point. He would not comment upon the speech of the Secretary for War, but he was bound to say that that was a red-letter day in the history of His Majesty's Government. More unfortunate speeches than those of the Secretary for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty had never been made in that House, and they would rest in the memory of the public, who, in future, would be able to estimate at their proper value the speeches which those right hon. Gentlemen made in Opposition, in which position they would be again very shortly.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the Secretary for War had informed them that what differentiated the case now under discussion from the cases

  649
  referred to by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, was that the latter were practically private companies which, for purposes of convenience, had been turned from private partnerships into limited liability companies. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that in the case of Meux's the ordinary shares had not made a penny for a considerable number of years. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the contract in question was a fairly large one, and it was quite conceivable that it might make all the difference between a dividend and no dividend on the ordinary shares of the company. No one accused the First Lord of the Admiralty of knowing anything about the matter but the principle was exactly the same as in the cases referred to by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that if they were to have a defence he trusted they would have something more logical and satisfactory than the observations which the Secretary for War had thought it right to make. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the attack was made in the last Parliament on the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire because they were private companies, and that that made the whole difference. What difference did it make? The only difference was this: if it could be shown that a very large interest was held in those companies, then it might be said that those in Ministerial positions who held it might be under some kind of suspicion, because their pecuniary interest in the company was so large. The question whether the company was originally a private partnership did not appear to him to have any bearing at all. The whole question was what was the amount of their interest. He did not make any attack on the First Lord in connection with the matter. He had not the slightest wish to join in any hue and cry against him. But they must take facts as they were. Here was a company of which, he was informed, the shares had never been issued to the public, and he was told that the noble Lord himself —he might be wrong —held half the ordinary shares of the company — 2,500 out of 5,000. He could scarcely
  650
  conceive a greater pecuniary interest in a transaction between the Government and a company of that kind. He could not see the least difference, from that point of view, between that and a private company. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say —"Oh, yes; it makes a great difference; this company has paid no dividend on the ordinary shares." He could not see what difference that made, except that the shareholders might be even keener to get a profitable contract. He expressly declined to make any attack on the noble Lord; he was quite sure that he had not used his position to influence the Government to make a contract with this company rather than any other; but the incident was an illustration of the reckless way in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite used their privileges as Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had said —
  "The standard of the previous Government was a very different standard from that of this Government. I know a case in which a Minister on accepting office sold out investments at great sacrifice."
  Had that really been followed up by the present Government?
  MR. HALDANE: Members of the present Government do not hold directorships.
  Lord R. CECILsaid that that statement showed the confusion of thought in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Members of the late Government who were attacked did not hold directorships either.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not wish to revive old controversies, but I would point out that it is a question of the controlling interest in private companies, an interest which in the eyes of the public may probably be held to give those who possess the interest a certain amount of control.
  LORD R. CECIL:said that that did not seem to him in any way material; it might or might not be so, but the only objection which could be

  651
  raised to members of the Government holding an interest or a directorship in a company was that their pecuniary interest might be set in opposition to their public duty. That was the whole point; there was nothing else in it. Which was the greater —the pecuniary interest of a director who held a qualifying interest in a company, or the interest of a gentleman who held half the ordinary shares? If it were objectionable for a director to hold office in a Government, it was far more objectionable if the gentleman held half the ordinary shares and occupied an office in the Government which made contracts with the company. He ventured to think that the matter, by reason of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, had become very serious and was one which the House ought carefully to consider.
  MR. FORSTERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the question at issue in the last Parliament was whether or not Ministers of the Crown should hold a controlling interest in private companies, and that that was condemned. He would like to read to him the subject matter of the debate. The following was the Resolution moved as an Amendment to the Address by the right hon. Gentleman who was now President of the Board of Trade: —
  "We humbly beg to represent to your Majesty that Ministers of the Crown and Members of either House of Parliament holding subordinate offices in any public department ought to have no interest direct or indirect in any firm or company competing for contracts with the Crown, unless the nature and extent of such interest be first declared, or your Majesty shall have sanctioned the maintenance thereof, and when necessary shall have directed such precautions to be taken as may adequately prevent any influence or favouritism in the allocation of such contracts."
  That was what the Resolution said. He would also remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he had said in addition to the passages quoted by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire: —
  "The criticism we make is that these things produce unrest and uneasiness in the public mind, and are, therefore, a bad example. The things are the holding of shares or being indirectly interested in the shares of a company which contracts with the Government. …What is the real interest of the public in the matter? It is that the Ministry should by
  652
  their conduct be free from all misconception or suspicion in the public mind." †
  That was the question at issue, and he maintained that at any rate the attitude of the members of His Majesty's Government now was strangely inconsistent with their attitude at the time they were in Opposition.
  *MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would like to point out to the Secretary of State for War an inaccuracy in his statement. He saw by the Stock Exchange Intelligencer that Meux's ordinary shares paid interest in 1903. As to the voting power it was as follows: — One vote for every ordinary share and one for every ten Preference Shares. There were 5,000 ordinary shares of £100 each, and 50,000 Preference shares of £10 each; so that the ordinary shares, which he believed were held by two persons, one. of them the First Lord of the Admiralty, had equal voting and controlling power with all the rest of the shareholders put together. He believed that entirely disproved the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the First Lord of the Admiralty not having a voting or controlling power.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty a direct question. His hon. friend had read the Resolution which had been endorsed and supported by the Members of the present Front Bench; and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in this specific instance Lord Tweedmouth did make to him or to the other officials concerned in considering the contract before the contract was accepted such a declaration as was referred to in the Resolution, and, if so, what were the precautions taken by the right hon. Gentleman in the discharge of his duties. An answer to that question would clear up the point which was in doubt; and, in putting it, he wished to emphasise what had been said by his hon. friend behind him that he had not the slightest desire to impute to Lord Tweedmouth any impropriety in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman must
  † See (4) Debates., lxxxviii, 454.

  653
  admit that they on that side of the House were thoroughly justified in pressing this matter on the attention of the Government, because the subject was certainly burnt into his mind from the fact that on the very first day he entered the House he had the opportunity of hearing these attacks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and brought home to him that afternoon. He thought that on this occasion the chicken had come home to roost.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will answer the specific question as to whether the First Lord of the Admiralty made any declaration to me. ["To the Crown."] A declaration to me, I think that was the question. No declaration as far as I can remember, in fact no declaration, was made to me. I had no knowledge of Lord Tweedmouth's connection with this company at all, any more than Lord Tweedmouth had knowledge that this particular company was competing for the contract. I want to make it clear now that this company tendered in the ordinary way for the Army contract —it has nothing to do with the Navy at all —and the lowest tender was accepted in the usual way. Meux's was the lowest tender. The connection of Lord Tweed-mouth with Meux's was then unknown to me. No declaration was made to me, and I am pretty safe in saying that no declaration was made to the Crown.
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to what I said on a former occasion. I have nothing to retract from what I said then. The company referred to in the previous debate was a private company in which a Minister had an interest. I said then, and I say now, that nobody in the House suggested that the Minister concerned was acting from any improper motive.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The, right hon. Gentleman professes to make a statement of fact as to what took place in the previous debate. He must read the debate again, as his recollection is inadequate. The only company concerned in the former debate was a company in which I was a shareholder and my right. hon. relative was not, but the debate was not confined to that company. Every in-
  654
  vestment which I held, and which could be traced, was brought in. It is not correct to say that the gravamen of the charge then turned upon the fact that the particular company was a private company. The attacks were just as strong in regard to companies which were not private companies, and where there was not the shadow of a pretence of our having a controlling interest. As a matter of fact, neither my right hon. relative nor I had a controlling interest in the companies mentioned, or anything like the interest which the First Lord of the Admiralty has in Meux's brewery.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: After the opinions expressed by right hon. Gentlemen when in Opposition, may I ask whether in future this declaration will be insisted upon?
  MR. SUMMERBELLsaid a large number of employees had complained of the bad ventilation of the. clothing factory at Pimlico. He wished to know whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War had been drawn to that matter, and, if so, whether any steps would be taken to improve the ventilation. There was also some dissatisfaction felt in regard to the wages paid. The employees were piece-workers, and their grievance was one which it was difficult to deal with on the floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had kindly promised to receive a deputation from the employees in order to have the matter discussed. Could the right hon. Gentleman state when the deputation would be received?
  MR. HALDANEsaid there was no doubt that the percentage of carbon in the air of the factory was not satisfactory, and the matter was receiving attention. As to the question of wages, that would be a subject of representation. No doubt the hon. Member would bring his views on the matter before the War Office.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEthought there

  655
  should be a certain amount of freedom of access on the part of the employees to the political heads of departments, or some one delegated by them, in regard to complaints. In this case there was a suspicion that the military heads did not understand trade union matters. On previous occasions happy results had been obtained by Lord Stanley and Mr. Brodrick through meeting the representatives of the employees.
  MR. JOYCEsaid that when the question of inviting tenders for clothing was being discussed the right of tender should be granted by the War Office to any company who could comply with the conditions. He reminded the Secretary of State that a shirt factory had been started at Limerick by a company whose object was more philanthropic than financial. They had no desire to make any profit out of the factory; they had gone to a good deal of expense, and they were trying to provide work for poor girls who would otherwise be idle. He thought it was not too much to ask that a portion of the money expended by the War Office should be given for work done at such factories. He did not. care where they were. Good work was turned out at the Limerick factory, the sanitary conditions of the place were of the best kind, and there was no chance of infectious disease being spread through the clothing made there as might be the case when clothing was made in the sweating dens of the poor. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was possible to give the Limerick factory a contract.
  MR. REESasked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the propriety of buying not only in Ireland, but also in Wales. Excellent flannels, tweeds, and blankets were made in Montgomeryshire, and it would be a good thing. for the locality if purchases for the Army could be made by the War Office of the articles manufactured there. He could not understand way the obligation to buy in Wales should be less than the obligation to buy in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that under the new Army
  656
  scheme a walking out-dress was to be supplied by the Government at such an extraordinarily small cost that either the quality of the material must be bad, or the conditions under which the dress was produced must be undesirable. He did not know precisely the cost of the dress, but it was to be something like 30s. It that was to be the cost, it raised a question as to the conditions under which the work would be done.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it was the business of the associations to provide the clothing, and they were allowed considerable latitude in the matter. He did not know where the clothing was got. The fears expressed by the noble Lord were not well founded, because the Pimlico scale was on the whole rather high. With regard to the appeals of the hon. Members for Limerick and the Montgomery Boroughs, he could only say that the War Office had the most benevolent intentions towards Ireland and Wales.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that in case there should be some misapprehension in regard to the cost of the walking-out dress he wished to state that having made specific inquiry, he found that in Scotland the estimated cost of a Highland doublet, trews, and Glengarry bonnet was £1 12s. 3½d.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Secretary for State of War had told them that an inquiry was being made as to some of the properties which were desirable in a rifle. What he wanted to know was whether that inquiry was limited or all-embracing. He had put an unstarred Question to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the weakness of the breach action of our rifle since the Martini-Henry rifle had been discarded from use in the Regular Army, and his Answer was an

  657
  admission that its strength was weaker than that of the French and German rifles. He did not want to make an unduly strong case. Formerly the Swiss rifle was much simpler and cheaper than our own, and had some of the qualities in which our rifles were wanting. The Swiss had now a more complicated and a dearer rifle. He had asked a high authority in Switzerland how that change had come about, and his answer was that it was owing to target-shooting. They were prevented for a time from having the best military rifle because of the desire of the Swiss forces to make bull's eyes at target practice. Was not that so in this country? The German Government had now got a new rifle which had a much flatter trajectory and a much higher muzzle velocity. They had a breach action which stood a very high explosive force, and were able to use a point-blank sight up to 800 metres, which was of overwhelming importance in a military rifle. Another factor which militated against the adoption of the improved rifle was that we were frequently engaged in war with savages and we were apt to adopt a rifle which would be of less use against continental armies. What added to our inferiority was that we had adopted the short rifle for all arms.
  *MR. BELLAIRSsaid, in reference to the question of the service rifle, that the War Office had adopted the short rifle, and in order to get a high velocity they must have a high pressure. If they attempted to use a low pressure the barrel was not long enough. With a slow-burning powder with that short barrel the powder would not all be consumed in the barrel, and even now they had a brilliant flash when firing the short rifle, a flash which at dusk revealed the position of the firing party. They would therefore be driven to adopt a high pressure, but their bolt action would not stand more than from seventeen to twenty tons of pressure. With the German rifle the pressure ran up to twenty-three tons, which achieved a very high muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second, whereas our muzzle velocity was only 2,060 feet per second.
  658
  The result was that the German Army could use a fixed sight up to nearly 900 yards. That was the case with all other continental armies except Russia, while we could only use fixed sights up to 500 yards. Even Portugal was far ahead of us. The German rifle had also a much greater penetrating power against gun shields because the bullets were lighter. He noticed that the Russians attributed the Japanese victories to the fact that the Japanese had the advantage of 300 feet of velocity in their rifles over the Russian rifles. Our troops were very few, as everybody knew, and it was, therefore, incumbent on the Government to give them the very best weapons that money could buy. Unfortunately in this House the temper in favour of economy was very strong, and Ministers might be unduly influenced by considerations of economy. He wanted some explanation in regard to the reported failure of the lyddite shells which had been rejected from Woolwich, and in regard to the cartridge cases which were very much at fault and had produced "blow-backs" in the rifles. Then there was the point, to which the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had referred, as to the bullet adopted on account of the wars we were engaged in with savage people. There had been an undue tendency on the part of the Committee which adopted the copper bullet to stick to the old-fashioned bullet which the Germans had discarded for a long time. The steel envelope bullet which the German Army used owing to the velocity was able to penetrate gun shields, but we could not adopt high velocity owing to the metallic stripping in the barrel.; He ventured to forecast that we should be driven to adopt a light bullet with a steel envelope. He understood that new sights had been adopted graduated for a; muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet a second. That was unfortunately a retrograde step. He thought that the War Office would be bound to adopt a higher muzzle velocity as other nations had done long ago. He had noticed in that day's newspapers that the field-gun sights were giving trouble, and that the glass tubes of the clinometer sights broke immediately the gun was fired. All these

  659
  things meant a considerable increase of expenditure to remedy. As he had pointed out on the cordite debate, the combined reduction in the Army and Navy on the Vote for projectiles and ammunition amounted to £ 651,000, or 31 per cent. of the Vote for the previous year, which in itself marked a large falling off from 1905–6. As to cordite the Secretary of State had been unduly optimistic. The right hon. Gentleman stated very emphatically that —
  "Mercuric chloride did not in any way affect cordite. It did not make it more dangerous. What it did do was to mask the use of the, heat test."
  But the evidence that he had was that mercuric chloride might lead to deterioration of the cordite if it were stored for a long time. Then the right hon. Gentleman stated that he had got hold of a test which would allay all anxiety as to the presence of mercuric chloride in the cordite, and that that test was to be applied everywhere where cordite was to be found. He asked if that was the case where officers of the Army and Navy did their work in magazines abroad both afloat and ashore. His information was that there was no such extension of the heat test as would get over the presence of mercuric chloride. The efficacy of the silver cup test, which was the latest idea, could only be proved after lengthy investigation, and even so it could not be applied wherever the cordite was stored. It took too long and required much skill and accessories. It might be applied at Woolwich, but it could not be applied on the spot — say, either on land at Hong Kong or on board ship at sea. In that case there was a great deal of anxiety because there were tons of untested cordite both ashore and afloat. The right hon. Gentleman had said that tests were being carried out wherever there was cordite. The Committee was thus misled, and only twenty-five showed dissatisfaction in the division lobbies. There was a considerable danger of being too optimistic on the question. He found in the text-book on ammunition published in 1904 that it was laid down that —
  "After ten years use cordite has proved itself a thoroughly stable explosive both chemically and ballistically, in all climates and under
  660
  all conditions of service. …The experience of some years has proved that these powders can stand severe climatic conditions without showing signs of deterioration and without their ballistic qualities being impaired."
  A report of that kind showed that officers and experts in the Army could be unduly optimistic, and he was not sure that if they had not held those optimistic views and had carried out the test more frequently they would not have avoided the explosions which had occurred in our land magazines and on our ships. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them a reassuring statement and not exaggerate what could be done.
  *MR. COURTHOPEwished to say a word or two about the rifles used by the Volunteer Force, and also to refer to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean on the subject of the German rifle. The German rifle, it was true, fired a very light bullet, but he believed he was right in saying that in spite of its extreme lightness that bullet had a greater stopping power than the heavier and more solid bullet which we used. Ho believed the advantage was brought about more by the shape than by anything else. He would like to point out one further defect of the short rifle, and that was the extreme weakness of the clip loading outrigger, which was of such a nature that it would never stand active service. He had handled a rifle with one of these attachments for a very short time, and with great care, but the outrigger had even under such conditions become loose, and from his experience he was sure the troops would not be able to get the full use of them. It had been suggested that high scoring at target practice had a good deal to do with the selection of the present rifle, but our short rifle was so inaccurate directly one got beyond 500 yards that it was a general matter of complaint. He made inquiries at Bisley last year of experts who had been in the; habit of using the short rifle, and he remarked that they were not using it. They said they did not do so because it was not accurate enough for them. They said it would be useful for this or that purpose, but it was of no use for accurate target firing. He thought that was a very strong argument against the shortness of the rifle.

  661
  Dealing with the question of the conversion of the long Lee-Enfield rifle for the use of the Volunteers, in reply to Questions the right hon. Gentleman had said that the converted rifle would not be adjusted with a back sight with a screw adjustment for elevation and wind gauge. He thought that was a great mistake. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman once more to give the best possible back sight on the rifles of the Volunteers. He did not think the question of economy should enter into the matter, because he gathered that in any case the War Office were going to put on a new back sight before the issue of rifles to the Volunteers. What he said was: "Let it be a good one." In January, 1900, a Committee was appointed to inquire into matters connected with small arms, and that Committee ordered an experiment to be made with a thousand of the short rifles which were to be issued to the troops; 500 had the old-fashioned slide and 500 the screw adjustment. The test was an absolute one after a long trial, and the decision come to by the experts was that the back sight which could be fixed to the short rifles with a screw adjustment was a better sight than the long Lee-Enfield sight, it being stronger. The old sight was therefore rejected and the new one accepted. The conclusion come to was that the back sight could be fixed on the short rifles with a screw attachment and was a better sight than that attached to the long Lee-Enfield. Yet in spite of that the rifles to be supplied to the Volunteer Force were to have applied to them the old-fashioned sight without this screw adjustment. He earnestly appealed on behalf of the Auxiliary Forces to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter before it was too late. The fact that the matter was still under the consideration of the War Office showed that it was not too late to make a change in the right direction. He also wished to call the attention of the Secretary for War to another serious matter. He had heard rumours from Germany, where they seemed to know all about it, as to the effect of the high explosives we used upon our rifles. He had also heard rumours as to the depletion of the stores of ammunition in this country. He hoped the right hon.
  662
  Gentleman would take an opportunity of reassuring the country upon these questions or of taking the House into his confidence. It was of grave consequence that they should not be kept in ignorance of matters about which these rumours reached them from foreign countries who seemed to have more accurate information than we had ourselves.
  *MR. LEVERTON HARRIScalled attention to certain discharges at Woolwich. He knew that he was not permitted on this Vote to call attention to the whole of the Woolwich discharges about which they felt very strongly., The men whose cases he wished to bring forward on this Vote were carpenters, and were discharged when they had nearly reached the period at which they would become entitled to a bonus on being discharged. There were also other cases, some of whom were within a few weeks of the seven years, and if they had not been prematurely discharged they would have received a bonus of one week's salary for each year's service, amounting in some eases to eight or ten pounds. The cases had created in the neighbourhood an unfortunate misconception that the authorities at Woolwich had a particular object in discharging the men who would have earned their bonus in a few weeks if they had gone on. The idea, which of course he knew was erroneous, was that they were got rid of in order to save the payment of the bonus. That placed His Majesty's Government in an unfortunate position, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to remove that misconception and remedy the injustice done to men who after working very hard for seven years were discharged without receiving the bonus to which they would otherwise have been entitled.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the question just raised was not only engaging his attention, but they were making every effort to lighten the hardships inevitable to the cutting down of the establishments. They went on the principle of beginning with the men who had done shortest service, and they tried to keep on men who were getting near the bonus period. He was aware that there were cases of

  663
  hardship, but they were inevitable, and in what they had done they had gone far beyond the most benevolent private firms.
  *MR. LEVERTON HARRISasked if it would not be possible to give some small part of the bonus to the men who had almost reached the time for its payment.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that that would not be possible. It would vary the terms of service, and would lead to innumerable difficulties. The question of lyddite shells referred to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn was under investigation. A certain number of shells had been found defective, and had been rejected. Repeating his former assurances regarding cordite, he said they were sending out to foreign stations and testing it wherever they could. They were getting it home as quickly as possible. With regard to the rifle, it was true that target practice could not be regarded as the sole determinant. War purposes must be considered, and the general military opinion was that the short rifle was for these purposes the most effective. Inquiry had shown that the short rifle's power to consume its charge of cordite within its length was complete or nearly so. A much more serious question raised by the right hon. Baronet for the Forest of Dean concerned the new bullet adopted by Germany and France. The bullet of our service rifle was a cone with a thick end, which, like a certain form of cigar, had a thick end and a body of comparatively parallel sides. The new bullet which was being adopted in Germany and France was a much lighter bullet, and was rather in the form of the other kind of cigar, which was a sharp cone and ended at a point. The charge was considerably greater than ours, but the calculation of the German exports was that they got no more recoil, because the lightness of the bullet balanced the magnitude of the explosion, and in that way they got a tremendous muzzle velocity. The effects were very striking, as he had observed from photographs. At a short distance, 200 or 300 yards, it made a tremendous hole. It did not penetrate; it smashed through. Its stopping power was enormous. It had really much the same effect as the ex-
  664
  plosive bullet might have. Per contra, at distances of about 1,000 yards the velocity of the bullet was no greater than the velocity of ours, and at 1,100 yards it was considerably less. Our bullet was therefore much more effective for long distances. It had to be considered whether in our kind of war, which was mostly under different conditions from those of Continental nations, this new bullet was the best. Nevertheless, the question was serious, and the War Office were closely investigating it. The result might be that they would have to alter their rifle or adopt a longer one. What he was most anxious to do was not to move too quickly. They would like to see it used on a large experimental scale. There had been a long series of experiments going on for months past with the view of determining what was best to be done. With a large charge they might have to modify the breech mechanism of the present rifle. It remained to be seen whether such pressure was consistent with accuracy. As regarded the conversion of the Volunteer rifle, they were adopting new sights. They would not in all respects be what the hon. Member wished, but they would be able to make very considerable improvement upon what at present existed, and the matter was receiving attention. As for the charges, they were not wrong, but the fault was with the bullet head. That part had been rather weak, but it was being attended to and improvements were being made which would meet the difficulty to which reference had been made.
  SIR F. BANBURY: Does this short rifle kick more than the old one?
  MR. HALDANE: We went very carefully into that, but we find that it does not kick more than the other.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked how the right hon. Gentleman could settle down to the view that it did not kick more if it did.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that the recoil was not substantially greater. People were now getting rid of the subjective convictions and were settling down to the view that it did not kick more.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he wished to ask a question about the decrease of £267,000 under Subhead K. He did not want to go into the question of cordite again, but he wished to know whether this large decrease was due to keeping an insufficient stock of gun ammunition. The cordite stock, he understood, had to be continually renewed, and they had always to keep a certain amount of it in stock, because it took about a year to mature. If the stock now being provided for was sufficient, would the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was necessary to have a so much larger stock last year and why he was able to reduce it to such a large extent this year?
  MR. COCHRANEsaid the bullet used in the German rifle gave a much higher velocity. In Germany and France they had adopted an ammunition not only with a steel case bullet longer than ours, but also one that gave a greater velocity. The same ammunition had recently been adopted in the United States of America. That ammunition had obviously many advantages if they were able to have a fixed sight at 800 yards which would allow the soldier to aim point blank instead of setting up sights. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of adopting a similar system? This was a matter of enormous importance, because it would increase the effective range of the troops and enable them to make a more effective use of their weapon.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it was not the character of the ammunition. Cordite had more energy of action than the nitro-cellulose used in the United States. The difference was not in the character of the ammunition but in the fact that they used a much larger charge than we do. It remained to be. seen whether the twenty-three-ton pressure would prove to be an effective pressure. They certainly could increase their charge on the present breech-block, and they were now experimenting to that end.
  MR. BRIGHTasked whether it was intended that they should adopt in the British Army the German bullet,
  666
  the effects of which were as great as those of the explosive bullet. Were they going in for a bullet which caused such a tremendous blow as to destroy the greater part of the body? The dumdum bullet having been condemned, it seemed to him that they ought to be ruling out the new bullet instead of adopting it.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid during the present financial year only one-sixth of the rifles with which the Territorial Army were to be armed would be converted, so that it would be six years before the whole force had one uniform weapon, and six years was more than the ordinary lifetime of small arms. He therefore hoped that this was only intended to be initial expenditure, and that during the forthcoming financial year the Secretary for War really meant to have an adequate number —say three-sixths of the remaining five-sixths —of these rifles properly converted. That, however, was to his mind less serious than the very slow manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to convert the guns. During this financial year he only allotted £10,000 for the conversion of the fifteen.-pounders. That represented nine batteries of four guns each, or only one-twelfth of the big guns with which the Territorial Force was to be armed. That, again, was utterly inadequate. As in the case of the rifle, the experimental stage had long passed, and there could be no excuse for delaying matters on the ground that a small sum only ought to be allowed during the first year. It seemed to him to be utterly wrong to proceed with the conversion of these rifles at the rate of only one-sixth of the total per annum, and of the big guns at the rate of only one-fifteenth. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them a guarantee that next year he intended to deal with the matter more effectively.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Government were just completing the programme for the field guns upon which up to now their energies had been concentrated. When that had been finished they would be in a position to go on more quickly with the conversion of the short rifle. It might seem terrible that these more effective engines of destruction should come into

  667
  existence, but if Continental armies were going to use them this country could not stand by to be shot down, and they must have as good a weapon as foreign nations had got. The only check was by combined action of the nations at the Geneva Conference.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that as it would be six years before the Territorial Army would be armed with the new rifle he would like to know why the Secretary for War could not set up machinery at Woolwich to convert the rifle instead of discharging the men there. Surely by rearranging the machinery at Woolwich the skilled men who were being discharged could carry out the conversion of these rifles. Many of the men were going abroad and they might be engaged by foreign Powers in doing this very work. He also asked whether this Vote provided for the cost of the machinery which would be necessary in future for the protection of cordite. Did it cover the new refrigerating machinery or merely the stock of cordite? He thought the House ought to know whether the War Office was going in for the same system as that which had been adopted by the Navy.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not in order in discussing that question upon this Vote.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he noticed that there was nothing in the Estimates for Brennan torpedoes, and in order to get some explanation he moved to reduce the Vote by £100.
  *MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid he wished to put a question with regard to the bayonets and swords. In reply to numerous questions they had always received the stereotyped answer that the matter was still under consideration. He had the advantage of having served on the Small Arms Committee and he knew something of the difficulties they had to meet. The delay upon the question seemed interminable. He thought a period extending over eighteen months was quite long enough to issue for trial a bayonet and a sword. In his opinion two or three days would be enough to see whether they were all right or not. and he.
  668
  hoped they would receive on this occasion a more satisfactory reply.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.)said questions had been put to him in regard to the delay in issuing bayonets and swords and in reference to the possibility of having the conversion of the rifle more rapidly carried out at Woolwich. With regard to the first question, the swords and bayonets were being considered when the present Government took office, and they had ever since been constantly under investigation. Trials were going on still, and it was impossible at present to come to a final decision. The hon. and gallant Member complained that he had always received the same answer. Surely a certain amount of delay was sure to take place in a matter of that kind. As for carrying on the conversion of the rifles at Woolwich, that would entail setting up the necessary machinery there. At the present time they had machinery at Enfield which did all the work they required, and it would be needless expenditure to fix up machinery at Woolwich for the purpose.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he could not understand what the reason was for all the delay. The Financial Secretary said the matter was being investigated, but they were entitled to a better explanation than that. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to rearm the Yeomanry with swords. Did he think that the investigations of the Committee in regard to swords and bayonets would be finished by the time the Territorial Forces Bill came into operation? They were entitled to know what were the reasons for the delay. Why could the results of the investigations not be made known in a week?
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it was pretty clear from the debate not only that had there been delay in regard to these investigations on the part of the present Government, but that there was also delay for which the late Government were responsible. As this question had been a subject of inquiry during the term of office of the late Government and during eighteen

  669
  months of the present administration, surely it was time some definite decision should have been arrived at. The cavalier way in which the Financial Secretary had dismissed the whole affair showed that there, was no serious intention on the part of the Government to do anything to provide an adequate number of swords and bayonets for the Army, It was clear that if there was the will on the part of the Government a way could be found to provide employment for a considerable number of the expert men. who had recently been dismissed at Woolwich by giving them work in connection with the conversion of rifles
  for the Army. He hoped the Members of the Opposition would vote against the. Resolution in order that they might place it upon record that the Government, although they had been shown a way by which they could give employment to the men at Woolwich, had chosen a policy which must lead to the dismissal of more men and a great deal more suffering.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 240; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 248.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd

  Higham, John Sharp

  Agnew, George William

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cox, Harold

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crombie, John William

  Hodge, John

  Asquith, Rt. HonHerbertHenry

  Crooks, William

  Hogan, Michael

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crossley, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Dewar, Arthur( Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barker, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barry, RedmondJ.(Tyrone,N.)

  Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Essex, R. W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bell, Richard

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Joyce, Michael

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Benn,Sir J. Williams(Devonprt

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  King,Alfred John(Knutsford)

  Benn,W.(T'w'r Hamlets.S.Geo.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bethell.Sir J.H.(Essex, Romfrd

  Findlay, Alexander

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lever,A Levy( Essex,Harwich)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Branch, James

  Gardner.Col. Alan(Hereford, S.

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Gill, A. H.

  Lundon, W,

  Bright, J. A.

  Ginnell, L.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gladstone.Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brunner,J. F. L.(Lanes., Leigh)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

  Cameron, Robert

  Halpin, J.

  M'Crae, George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Kenna, Rt. Bon. Reginald

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Massie, J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Cleland, J. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Clough, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Mond, A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth),

  Herbert,Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Mooney, J.,T.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thorne, William

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Toulmin, George

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, F. W.

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson.SirGScott (Bradf'rd

  Vivian, Henry

  Morse, L. L.

  Robinson, S.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walters, John Tudor

  Nicholls, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

  Rowlands, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Russell, T. W.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel,Herbert L.( Cleveland)

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

  Sears, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire;

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax;

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shackleton, David James

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Philipps, Owen.C. (Pembroke)

  Shaw, Rt. Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Price,RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

  Snowden, P.

  Williams, Osmond (i)

  Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford,E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Williamson, A.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson.HenryJ.(York.W.R.)

  Radford. G. H.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras.S.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Summer bell, T.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Recs, J. D.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —MR. Whiteley and MR. J. A. Pease.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

  Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan.E.)

  Richards,T. K.( Wolverh'mpt'n

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  Richardson, A.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Faber, GeorgeDenison (York)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Balfour.RtHn A.J.(City Lond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

  Banbury, SirFrederick George

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Sheffield,SirBerkeleyGeorge D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanley.Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hervey,F.W.F.(Bury S.Edm's

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson,W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cavendish,Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway,Rt.Hon.SirJohn H.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cecil,LordR. (Marylebone.E.)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wortley,Rt. HonC. B. Stuart-

  Clark,George Smith(Belfast,N.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Parker,SirGilbert (Gravesend)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A., Akers-

  Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

  Fourth Resolution read a second time.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he desired to call attention to the scandalous neglect; of barrack repairs and construction during the past year. The Financial Secretary admitted in answer to a question
  672
  in July last year that the barracks at Piershill, Edinburgh, were not in a proper state for the accommodation of troops. His recollection was that the hon. Gentleman stated that the matter was under investigation. There was no mention in the Vote of any provision for the repair of those barracks. He wanted to know whether the hon. Gentleman could now state what was to be done in the matter. Would they be

  673
  made sufficiently good for the accommodation of a cavalry regiment? On one side of the barracks there was a railway, on another side a sewage farm, and on a third side there was a very insanitary portion of the town. He had the best reasons for stating that owing to the insanitary state of the barracks there had been a considerable amount of diphtheria among the troops stationed there. He wished to know also what was to be done in regard to the Brighton Barracks. The medical report stated that those barracks had for years been in a bad state. The cavalry regiment stationed there was removed in consequence. Having regard to the fact that there was no finer station in the United Kingdom for the training of cavalry, he asked whether it would not have been in the interest of the Army for the Government to have expended on those barracks the comparatively small sum needed to make them fit for cavalry to remain there. He; considered that the War Office in this matter was open to a charge of something approaching gross negligence. Last year it was admitted that the barracks were in an insanitary condition, but nothing had been done to make them a proper station for cavalry.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked what steps had been taken by the War Office towards getting cavalry barracks in Scotland. The hope had been held out that two cavalry regiments were to be quartered in Scotland. As three regiments of cavalry formed a brigade, he hoped that three regiments would be sent there. It was a healthy country, and the people would be glad to see them. Had the right hon. Gentleman ever considered that in the case of riot it was necessary to have cavalry? The squadrons could be trotted up and down the streets, and they could prevent the mob from congregating in a way the artillery could not. He thought it was high time something was done in regard to the stationing of cavalry in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman should give a full and frank statement of what he was going to do. All this putting off was very unsatisfactory. The money spent at Tidworth on barracks ought to have boon spent to
  674
  advantage in Scotland. Barracks should not be placed right away on the downs far from the towns. We did not want our soldiers to be bored to death; if they were they took to drink. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would tell the House whether he was really going to do something to fulfil the hope foreshadowed by the Secretary of State for War in regard to quartering two or three cavalry regiments in Scotland.
  MR. PIRIEsaid that what they wanted to know was whether the Government were going to fulfil their pledges that something would be done to provide cavalry barracks in Scotland, or not. There was a very strong feeling in Scotland in regard to the matter. He looked with great suspicion on the excuses they had heard as to the removal of cavalry from Piershill, Edinburgh. His own opinion was that the excuses were entirely unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State for War was a past-master in the use of language, but when his words came to be analysed closely all the argument was against him. The entire Scottish Press was against the right hon. Gentleman. An hon. Member had alluded to the danger in which the large population of the city of Glasgow would be placed in case of a serious disturbance without the presence of a regiment of cavalry. He had formerly drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that fact, but with his usual mastery of language, the right hon. Gentleman had turned the laugh against him by saying that Scotland was the most pacific nation in the world. He, however, would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there was a very large alien mining population in the immediate neighbourhood of Glasgow. He remembered the time when he himself, in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman who was now in charge of this Vote, made an attack upon a former Government for neglect in repairing the dilapidations of the barracks at Piershill. He wanted to know why the present Government could not remedy that state of affairs. He hoped, if a division was taken, that Ministerialists would not blindly follow the Government Whips on this occasion.
  MR. MITCHELL THOMSONasked whether or not it

  675
  was the view of the War Office that the barracks at Piershill were insanitary. If they were insanitary why were any troops quartered there at all? He was certain that the Secretary for War, when he made the proposal to remove the Greys from Scotland, little knew of the storm which he would excite; and that storm was not growing less. The demand was made in Scotland, "Give us back the Greys." He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question was in Scotland entirely removed from Party feeling; and the Scottish Members had a right to demand from the Government a full and specific answer as to the reason why all cavalry were to be taken away from Scotland.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid he agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite in regard to the state of feeling in Scotland; but he wished to correct him in regard to the subject of retaining the Greys in Scotland. There had been a good deal of misunderstanding in regard to the matter. Anyone who understood the movements of troops knew that the Greys did not come to Scotland once in a blue moon. What was wanted was that there should be one or two regiments, of cavalry stationed in Scotland. He never could understand why Piershill barracks had been condemned just at this particular moment. They had never been proved to be insanitary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were not capable of accommodating the number of men and horses of which a cavalry regiment consisted. He did not know what provision the Government had made for the Greys in the place to which they were going. Was it to be any better than where they were now stationed? He understood that considerable difficulty was found in obtaining accommodation for the married contingent. He pressed the Financial Secretary to the War Office to dispel what he believed to be the illusion that there was any very definite decision on the part of the Government to deprive Scotland of cavalry. So far as he had been able to gather from his right hon. friend the Secretary for War, and from letters which he had written, his intention was to provide for more than one regiment of cavalry in Scotland. It was said by those who took an interest in military affairs that there must now be concen-
  676
  tration of cavalry in brigades; but there were seven isolated regiments of cavalry in England, and why should the one regiment be taken away from Scotland? The Secretary for War, as advised by his military experts, agreed to the general principle of the concentration of cavalry, but where was it going to lead him? There was no part of the British Islands where there was better manœuvring grounds for cavalry than in Scotland. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that Scotland was not going to be denuded altogether of cavalry. He was delighted to find so much enthusiasm on the other side of the House for the claims of Scotland—an enthusiasm, by the way, which was absent from them during the long years they were in office. He understood that two regiments of cavalry were necessary to provide for efficient cavalry training. [An HON. MEMBER: "Three regiments."] They had most excellent Yeomanry cavalry in Scotland, so that a proper training could be effectively provided. He hoped that the Financial Secretary to the War Office would state that a sufficient sum would be provided to accommodate one if not two cavalry regiments in Scotland, and for the improvement of the barracks there.
  *MR. BUCHANANsaid that in the course of the debate the demand for cavalry in Scotland had been in the ascending scale. It was first said that it was absolutely necessary to have one cavalry regiment in Scotland. Then the demand increased to two, and lastly to three regiments. He hoped it would not be considered that he was second to anyone in his desire to do what was within his power and duty for the country of his birth. An hon. Member had argued that it was necessary to have a regiment of cavalry in Glasgow in case of disturbance. He did not think that the reputation of the city was such that for that purpose there was any urgent necessity for cavalry there. He could at once reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for War never intended to take away permanently or for any length of time a cavalry regiment from Scotland. The Greys were still there. As his hon. friend the Member for East Edinburgh had pointed out, the Greys went from

  677
  Scotland only in the ordinary course and the next cavalry regiment stationed there would not be that regiment. But it was a stable determination in the mind of his right hon. friend the Secretary of State that there should be a cavalry regiment in Scotland, and he know that in considering cavalry reorganisation he had had in his mind the possibility of having in that country two cavalry regiments. The continuance of the cavalry barracks at Brighton also depended upon the reorganisation of cavalry. In carrying out the reorganisation of that arm of the service in brigades the War Office would naturally withdraw cavalry from most of the isolated stations. The medical committee that was sent down to inquire into the condition of Piershill Barracks reported that it could not be condemned as insanitary; but still it was an inferior barracks, and everybody who knew anything about Edinburgh or Piershill knew that the latter was not a satisfactory barracks and was near a sewage farm. The death rate was not a high one, but there was a good deal of sickness in the barracks from time to time. The situation generally was not a good one, but it was by no means a barracks in which it was dangerous in any degree to keep troops, and they intended to keep troops there. But it was the intention of the Government, as soon as the Greys were moved out, to have a further investigation, and all the works that were necessary to make it a proper place to keep troops in would be carried out. During the ten years the Party opposite were in power the condition of Piershill Barracks was often brought to their notice; but, though they had an overflowing Exchequer, they considered there were other services of a more urgent character. The present Government were endeavouring, with their much more limited resources for barrack construction, to deal with the more urgent cases, and, moreover, they regarded the building of cavalry barracks of a proper class in Scotland as one of the most prominent needs of our military requirements in the future.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman a Question. The hon. Gentleman in the first place began by telling them that Piershill Barracks were not insanitary, but that they were bad
  678
  barracks for troops, and he said they were near a sewage farm. If these were reasons for not keeping cavalry there they were equally reasons for not keeping artillery there. The Government ought to make up their minds whether, if these barracks were unfit for cavalry they were not also unfit for artillery. The hon. Gentleman said they were not insanitary, but they were not healthy.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the word "insanitary" had a technical meaning, and he was referring to the finding of a Committee which they sent down last year to find out whether the barracks were "insanitary" or not, and they found that they were not "insanitary."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he gathered then that Piershill Barracks were not "insanitary" technically, but that practically they were unhealthy. The Latin word was rejected, but the Anglo-Saxon word had much more meaning, and if these barracks were "unhealthy," though not "insanitary," be wanted to know why the Government were satisfied that they were safe, not only for cavalry, but for all branches of the Service. He thought the difficulty in regard to the provision of proper barrack accommodation in Scotland was due to the rigid financial purity of the present Goverment. Assuming, for the sake of argument, it was true that the policy of building works on loans was carried to excess by the late Government, was that a sufficient reason why the present Government should never resort to a loan even to provide buildings which were urgently needed? He might point out, moreover, that a Government which talked about economy very often left works to their successors to carry out, and then accused them of extravagance for doing so. The present Government, having laid down the principle that under no circumstances even the most permanent works were to be built except out of revenue, now found themselves face to face with the situation that they must either expand their Estimates, which they were unwilling to do, or allow troops to live in barracks that were admittedly unhealthy, if not insanitary. The reason was that the Government had not got the money to spend out of revenue, and by their own self denying ordinance they had made it impossible to raise it by taxation.

  679
  That was a very unhappy and lamentable conclusion in the interest of the health and efficiency of His Majesty's Forces. The victims of this policy were not hon. Gentlemen sitting in this House, but His Majesty's troops, and he was sorry that the Government with this practical illustration before them of the evils which might result from the rigid rules which they had chosen to lay down, should at whatever cost to the health of those who were serving their country insist on keeping them in barracks which, according to their own admission, were not of a nature in which they would wish them to be. He could not have a better illustration of the policy of the Government, and he hoped the Financial Secretary would consider the moral to be drawn from that state of things and communicate it to the Secretary for War, who was not present, and urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might depart from the rigid financial rule which he had adopted and relax it in the interest of those who were engaged in His Majesty's Service.
  MR. BUCHANAN: What I said in regard to Piershill Barracks was that as soon as the Greys left, not only will there be an investigation as to the sanitary condition of the barracks, but the works necessary to put them into a sanitary condition are immediately to be taken in hand.
  *MR. C. E. PRICEthought the Secretary to the Treasury had scarcely given a full explanation of the inquiries which had taken place in regard to these barracks. As he understood, there first was an inquiry by the Government, and the barracks were condemned. Another inquiry was then held by the local authority of Edinburgh and the barracks were found to be in a sanitary condition. A second Government inquiry was held. Now they were told the Greys were to be removed from Edinburgh and another inquiry was to be held. They in Scotland thought the Government had moved in this matter in a very unsatisfactory way, and it was difficult to discover why the right hon. Gentleman who had very early and possibly pleasant associations with the district should have treated Edinburgh in this way.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYcalled attention to the condition of Perth Barracks,
  680
  which he said was nothing loss than a scandal. After repeated complaints from the authorities, and infinite delay, it was promised that a bath should be provided in those barracks, but although some time had elapsed no bath had yet been provided. The buildings were very old and absolutely out of date from the point of view of modern sanitation and comfort. They were buildings which no good employer would tolerate his employees sleeping in for a moment. In the time of the late Government some attempt was made to remove some of the worst of the evils, but since the present members of the Treasury Bench had been responsible nothing whatever had been done. Although the question had been raised by many hon. Gentlemen neither the Secretary of State nor the Financial Secretary had offered a word of explanation on the matter. He could only imagine that that was because neither had given a thought to the subject.
  *MR. GULLANDentirely agreed with his colleagues from Scotland in the desire that the Government should give a full complement of cavalry to Scotland, and he believed that that was what the Government intended to do. With regard to the Piershill Barracks there were some irrigation meadows adjacent which might have affected those barracks, and the Corporation of Edinburgh had come to the decision to remove the irrigation works. He, however, desired to point out that if the Piershill Barracks were unhealthy, they had not become unhealthy all at once, and that years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in office, they were as unhealthy as they were to-day, and that the right hon. Gentleman could not then spare anything for Scotland. It was, therefore, scarcely for him to blame the Secretary of State for not having put them in a proper condition. It seemed to him that the reason why artillery might be put there was that there would be fewer men and horses, and the unhealthiness or the nuisance would not be so great as it might, be with cavalry. It was clear there must be a further inquiry, but it must be followed by action. The Scottish Members were only voicing the views of Scotland when they said there should be cavalry in Scotland.
  MR. J. F. MASONsaid he desired to obtain some information upon a subject of great interest in his constituency. He had, some time ago, asked the Secretary of State for War when he intended to rebuild the Victoria Barracks at Windsor, and the answer he received was that the work would be commenced forthwith. Nothing, however, had yet been done. It was a matter of urgent importance to the borough, because eighty-four houses were demolished to make room for the now barracks, and the empty space caused thereby entailed a great loss in rates, for the reason that the Government gave no contribution to the rates until the building was put up. He would like to know when it was proposed to build those new barracks.
  MR. WATTprotested against Scotland being deprived of a cavalry regiment. The insanitary condition of the Piershill Barracks had been assigned as the cause of removal; but as had been pointed out, an artillery regiment was still to remain, so the statement that the barracks were insanitary must be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, in the district to which he belonged there was a barracks waiting for a cavalry regiment. Although the right hon. Gentleman had indicated that he had been in the neighbourhood of the barracks it did not appear to have entered into his consideration, or he had forgotten that there was accommodation for a cavalry regiment there. They all knew that once Scotland was deprived of anything she never got it back. It was not for reasons of economy that money was not spent in this direction, because, so far as prisons were concerned the Government were most extravagant. They were building prisons in Scotland which were entirely unnecessary, and he thought that money might be better employed in building barracks.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out that the Government had laid it down as a principle by which they must be bound, that under no circumstances would they borrow for the purpose of erecting semi permanent works. In that his right hon. friend was quite right, but the principles and the practice of the
  682
  Government were two different things; Even now the Government proposed to borrow £6,000,000 for telegraphic works repayable in the same way, by means of a sinking fund, as money was borrowed and repaid under the Works Acts. What then was the difference in borrowing money for telegraphic works and borrowing for building barracks.
  MR. McCRAE: It was remunerative in one case and not in the other.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the hon. Gentleman went through the telegraphic accounts he would find that telegraphs had never paid.
  *MR. McCRAEsaid that one was yielding revenue and the other was not.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they were necessary no doubt, but not more necessary than barracks. Whatever might be the principles of the Government in theory, in practice they were very elastic. They had found it not inconsistent with their principles, or at any rate they considered it proper, to borrow money for telegraphic construction, yet they would not take the money to house the troops in barracks which were not insanitary and unhealthy.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked whether the Financial Secretary was aware that there was an item of £500,000 in the Military Works Bill supposed to be realised from the sale of old barracks. Probably they would realise about £50,000, and what he wished to point out was that most of the barracks were built under the Works Bill introduced by the late Government.
  *MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he had heard with surprise that this Government of efficiency were going to do nothing at all in the matter of Piers-hill Barracks, and the interjection which was made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh seemed to him to be a most extraordinary one. The Government had never when in Opposition favoured the issue of loans for works of any kind. They all had to be done out of income. That was excellent in theory, but unfortunately theory and practice were entirely different things. In practice it was found necessary sometimes to spend money out of capital account by way of a sinking fund

  683
  spread over a term of years. His right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that the Government themselves were doing, in the matter of the telegraphs, that very thing which they reprobated so strongly when they were in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who had interjected that the expenditure in telegraph works was remunerative, that they had lost a million last year. That was point number one. Point number two was that this Government of efficiency was actually not going to take into consideration the re-building of the barracks, which were in an insanitary condition, because such a work would not be remunerative. They had hoard all sorts of cries about the better housing of the working classes, and had been told that we could not have a great race of men unless we housed them properly. Yet here, in this leading case of the proper housing of their soldiers, the hon. Gentleman said they must do nothing —they must not have any capital expenditure at all, because it would not be remunerative. The Government, in the celebrated phrase of the Prime Minister, uttered the other day in quite a different connection, were too good. They must not be too good. A little bit of vice to set off their goodness would suit them admirably. As regarded finance, at any rate, ho advised them not to be too good. Let them try and forget all the wild things they said in Opposition, and practice the rules of common sense. If their barracks were in an insanitary condition let them in heaven's name put them right, and not, merely because in Opposition they preached false economy here, there, and everywhere, take up so extraordinary an attitude in this matter. If these Edinburgh barracks were in an insanitary condition it was the bounden duty of the Government, either out of the Estimates of the year, or by moans of a loan, to provide proper funds to put them in an adequate sanitary state.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid this was a more important matter than perhaps the House realized. Large sums would have to be spent on barracks. The Financial Secretary had made a very curious declaration of policy, for he had told them the Cavalry in future were to
  684
  be concentrated in certain solitary places. All he could say, that was not the policy of two years ago or of five years ago. At that time it was thought that the policy of concentrating regiments in melancholy places such as Salisbury Plain was a bad thing for the troops; and, indeed, the staffs, who knew the feeling of the troops, received with dismay the announcement that the Cavalry were to be taken away from the towns and other places, and placed in the middle of Salisbury Plain or at military centres of that description. When the new Militia Force was called into being and required accommodation, he would undertake to say that if the right hon. Gentleman went round the barracks now in existence he would find that a great many required to be put into proper order. An entirely new plan of barrack had been adopted, and funds had been set aside for building on that plan, and the work had been going forward. He had always believed that the barrack at Piershill ought to be transferred to another regiment, as the site was not sanitary at all for a Cavalry regiment. If, as the Leader of the Opposition had told them, what was being done was due to the unwillingness of the Government to spend money on loan, then all he could say was that something very serious would occur. They knew very well that the Dublin barracks were bad, and in fact a part of them was entirely rebuilt; but those who knew the circumstances would remember that at Dublin barracks a serious epidemic broke out and brought misery to many families connected with the regiments. The problem would have to be taken in hand. He did not know what distinction the hon. Member drew between unhealthy and insanitary. The whole of the operations at Norwich had been stopped, and up to the present nothing had been done. He had heard that they were going to put up a great building somewhere near Swinden. If that were done, and the great expense incurred, he ventured to say that they would be doing a very unwise thing. Norwich for many years had been a centre of regimental life for the Cavalry, and it been a favourable field for recruiting, while the military feeling in the county was excellent, because of the long association of the soldiers with the. civil population. He regretted that the Secretary of State was not present to deal with the matter, though, of course,

  685
  he did not blame him, for he could not have known that this matter was going to be raised. Still, it would have been far bettor had he been present, as the subject was one of great importance. There was the question of the Cavalry in Scotland, to which the Scottish Members attached importance, but an even wider question had been raised on which they desired a reply.
  MR. PIRIEasked whether it would not be possible, as an earnest of the intention of the Government in regard to the Cavalry in Scotland, to put down a certain sum, 20,000 or 50,000 on account, or ear-marked, against the time when they came to a decision as to where to place the barracks in Scotland.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid his hon. friend the Member for York had thought it necessary to urge the Government to forget what they had said in Opposition. Ho would have thought that that was what they were doing, and that they did not require any urging from the hon. Gentleman. But it was not to enforce that point that he had risen. He wished to ask what the Secretary of State had done with the forts for the defence of London in the neighbourhood of Dorking. They were, he understood, very eligible sites for the summer season, which might be very suitable for bungalows and things of that sort. As this session was likely to be prolonged, they might be useful at the week-ends to hon. Members. Perhaps a definite statement would be made on the subject, and also as regarded the forts in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth which had likewise been abandoned. Those forts were erected at great expense. Ho had seen the remark in the papers, ho did not know how true it was, that an American or French syndicate had offered to take over those forts. Had the Government | entered into any contract with any foreign power in respect of them. At any rate, the House was entitled to know what was proposed to be done with them I Had they been dismantled of guns, and had they been sold as seaside residences? Since the elaborate statement of the Secretary for War eighteen months ago as to the great economy which he expected to effect by the abandonment of the forts for the defence
  686
  of London, they had hoard nothing on the subject, and he thought they were entitled to a more definite statement. There was another matter upon which the right hon. Gentleman would give them information, and that was the furnishing of the officers' quarters. That was a subject in which for many years he had taken great interest, and he had urged that instead of the enormous expense incurred in carrying about the officers' effects, the quarters should be furnished. Ho would like to have an authoritative statement on that question.
  MR. MONDprotested against the Scottish Members attempting to make a corner in Cavalry regiments, and asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he would say what the War Office intended to do about Cavalry barracks at Chester. When the right hon. Member for Croydon was at the War Office, the question of building Cavalry barracks at Chester was raised, and one of the points then brought to the notice of the Chester Corporation was that if they would find a site, and present it free to the War Office, the barracks would be built. The corporation went to considerable trouble and found several admirable sites, but they had never been able to get any further assurance or answer as to whether or not the War Office intended to proceed with the barracks. He thought it would be preferable to build new barracks at Chester rather than repair old barracks in Scotland. He hoped he would be told if the War Office were to go on with the matter. He was horrified to find that the late Administration left the barracks in such a shocking condition. Now the Opposition came and solemnly asked the Government to spend money out of loans for repairing barracks. That seemed to him to be the most amazing financial proposition he had over heard. If the late Government had carried on the business on a sound basis they would have kept the barracks in decent repair out of revenue. They could not have become insanitary in twelve months; it must have been going on for years. Surely no one, not even the oldest financier, would suggest that the barracks should be repaired out of loans.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member is referring to me, I never

  687
  suggested that the repairing of barracks should be paid for out of loans.
  MR. MONDsaid he was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman, but to a number of speeches made by Members. For instance, as far as he could make out the hon. Member for York wished to have a kind of financial rake's progress.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I was referring to re-building.
  MR. MONDsaid that that was much the same thing. It is a euphemism for repairing. Further, it was a curious thing to find an ex-Postmaster-General informing them that the telegraph service was not a revenue producing service, because it did not pay. They should make it pay. He quite agreed that the soldiers ought to be well housed, and for that reason he thought very few Members would object to money being spent. But he hoped the Government would not be guided by gentlemen who. had set them a reckless example by leaving the barracks in such a deplorable condition.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that upon this question he found himself in cordial agreement with his brother Scots on the other side of the House. He thought it was desirable that they should have at least two cavalry regiments in Scotland. It was well known that Scotsmen made excellent cavalrymen. That point ought to be considered in connection with the Yeomanry and Volunteers, because it was desirable that they should have an opportunity of going to a convenient centre to witness how professional soldiers carried out their duties. The hon. Member for St. Andrews Burghs had suggested that a cavalry regiment should be kept at Glasgow, and the Financial Secretary replied that it was not necessary because Scotsmen were such peaceable persons. It was evident from that reply that the hon. Member had not been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee, or he would have observed that Scotsmen, when in a majority, were a very warlike race. At Edinburgh they had always been in the habit of having a cavalry regiment, with a detachment at Glasgow, and to deprive them of those regiments would be considered a national loss. They would like the Scots Greys at Edinburgh, but they
  688
  did not press for any special regiment there, and there ought to be one or two more regiments stationed in other parts of Scotland. The hon. Member opposite had told them that Piershill Barracks were not insanitary, although they were too unhealthy for a cavalry regiment. If they were unhealthy, why was it proposed to keep an artillery battery there? That point ought to be explained. There was nothing in the constitution of an artilleryman which enabled him to withstand unhealthy surroundings more than a cavalryman. If this was a new method of reducing the superabundant artillerymen it was very undesirable, because it was only killing them off by degrees. He did not think the Financial Secretary appreciated how strong feeling was upon this question in Scotland. Ho hoped those Scottish Members who thought that in this matter Scotland had been grossly neglected would take an opportunity in the division lobby of expressing their feelings.
  SIR F. CAWLEYsaid he was afraid the hon. Member who had just spoken could hardly have heard the debate, or he would never have accused the Financial Secretary of neglecting Scotland in this matter. Scottish opinion upon it had been abundantly voiced in the House, and the point which had been raised about Piers-hill Barracks was easy of explanation. Those barracks, it was true, had been declared to be unhealthy, but the causes of that unhealthiness were being remedied. He understood that the sewage farm in the neighbourhood was going to be given up. The premises, as soon as the Scots Greys had left, were to be overhauled and put into a thoroughly healthy condition, and then they were going to quarter the artillery there. There were not so many men in artillery as in cavalry regiments, and although it might not be salubrious to have too many cavalry there, it would be quite right for artillery when the place had been overhauled and the sewage farm taken away. The Government had practically promised that there should be two cavalry regiments kept in Scotland, and what more the Opposition desired he could not understand.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONfelt sure that the Financial Secretary must have been touched.

  689
  by the appeals which had been made to him from both sides of the House. The Government appeared to have been overcome with a fit of economy towards Scotland. They were depriving Scotland of a cavalry regiment in order to fulfil their election pledges, but he hoped that they would listen to the appeal now made to allow Scotland to keep her cavalry regiment. He trusted that the hon. Member would be able to announce that he had reconsidered the question, and that he would give a pledge to the House that he would see that the barracks were placed in a proper sanitary condition.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYurged that the main question to consider in the placing of troops was not the interest of Scotland or any other locality, but how best cavalry could obtain training as a part of our national Army. He was tired to death of hearing the complaints of Scottish Members who desired to get these regiments placed in their constituencies. He hoped all such matters would be decided from the point of view of the national Army and national efficiency, All this cadging ought to be put on one side. Was the hon. Member aware that when this lamentable exodus took place from Edinburgh and the Scots Greys were sent to another barracks the condition of the barracks they were sent to was so utterly hopeless and bad that they were condemned and, orders were issued to that effect, and the troops were not able to be stationed there? If that was the case, it required attention, not from the point of view of England or Scotland, but from the point of view of the proper housing of the, Army. He took an interest, like the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, in the settlement of the question with regard to the furnishing of the officers' quarters and mess rooms at the various barracks. He had heard that the charge made to the officers to recoup the Government was rather high, but he did not know that of his own knowledge.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is not in order to refer to the general question of the furnishing of barracks. If the hon. Member will name a particular item, I daresay he will be in order,
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I was following the speech you allowed my hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield to make.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I was trying to find out the item to which the hon. Member was referring.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he sympathised with the claims put forward by the Scottish Members and suggested that they should put aside Party feeling in this matter and vote against the Government. He appealed to the Government to do something to improve the accommodation at Holy wood barracks in county Down. There was much more difficulty in recruiting in Ireland than in any other part of the United Kingdom and, therefore, it was most important to make the barracks in Ireland as attractive as possible.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that very little progress seemed to have been made in regard to Kingston barracks. He wished to know whether that was in the interest of economy. If so, it was false economy because, the work having been begun, it would be better to get it finished. As long as they dawdled over it the capital which had been expended was useless. He joined in the protest against the absence during the debate of the Secretary of State for War. It was said that the right hon. Gentleman did not know that the matter was coming on, but he must have known because there were only three Votes in Supply set down for consideration on Report. It was not respectful to the House of Commons that the Minister at the head of the Department concerned should not be present when a really important Vote was being discussed.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the items referred to in this Vote had received careful consideration. All the proposals now made were absolutely necessary. The Vote was for what the best military authorities considered most urgent in the interest of the Service. An effort was being made to dispose of the land at Dorking, but up to the present he did not think that any of it had been disposed of.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the forts surrounding London, which were now obsolete, must have been erected through lack of proper consideration in the past. He had no doubt that money was being spent this year which the development of strategy would render equally obsolete after an interval of twenty-five years. An hon. Member, referring to the claim made for the repair of Piershill barracks, had said that he objected to the Scottish Members cadging for cavalry. They were not cadging for cavalry; they were cadging for decent arrangements. A perusal of the Reports showed that as compared with the health of those at other barracks, the health of the troops at Piershill was such that the sanitation must be extremely bad. The hon. Gentleman said that an inquiry was to be held. Why could not an inquiry be held forthwith? The fact was that the Government was pursuing a dilatory course in regard to these barracks purely from the point of view of finance. Would the hon. Member tell the Committee what sum was allotted out of this Vote for structural repairs to the barracks in Scotland? Of course, these structural repairs ought to be carried out by way of loan. The fact that a huge Loan Bill was to be brought forward the next day for a purely unremunerative service showed that the Government were not sincere in regard to the expenditure on the structure of barracks. Until the Government made up its mind to meet that expenditure by way of loan nothing would be done for the improvement of the barracks. Question after question had been asked of the Financial Secretary to the War Office as to the cavalry at Maryhill barracks, and the only reply the hon. Gentleman gave was that he himself had been born in the city of Glasgow, that the Glasgow people were very law-abiding, and did not require the presence of cavalry amongst them. But the hon. Gentleman forgot that within a few miles of Glasgow there was a very large population of aliens, including Poles, and in Glasgow itself there were hundreds or thousands of people of foreign birth. He did not think that the presence of a detachment of cavalry in Maryhill barracks would be amiss. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Secretary for War hoped that there would be two regiments
  692
  instead of the one stationed in Scotland. Could not they have something more definite than hopes? He knew very well that the policy of putting all capital expenditure on the Votes would seriously delay the erection of new barracks. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had east in their teeth that the late Government did not erect new barracks where they were required.
  *MR. BELLAIRSsaid that what ho had pointed out was that the late Government had erected many new barracks which were now for sale.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that the late Government had laid down a particular line of policy which was not carried out by the present Government. If the Secretary of State for War determined to quarter no troops in places where the barracks were erected, the blame for the sale of those barracks must to shared by the present Government.
  *MR. BELLAIRSsaid his answer to that was that the sum of £500,000 appeared in the Works Bill of 1905, introduced by the last Government, as the amount to be realised from the sale of the barracks, and he asserted that some of these barracks had been erected by the same Government under previous Works Bills.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he understood that the Greys were to go to Salisbury Plain in the course of the next few weeks, and that the married establishment of the regiment would be placed at a very considerable distance from the barracks. That would be a very inconvenient and tiresome state of things for the wives. The barracks were five miles by foot walk, often impassable in bad weather, from the married quarters, nine miles by the high road, and twenty-two miles by the railway. Such a stale of things was indefensible, and so long as the Government, from a false sense of economy, or from financial purism, charged all structural alterations or new works to revenue rather than to loan, the result would be the discouragement of enlistment of men in particular regiments. As to the money to to spent to effect improvements according to modern requirements at Colonial stations, there were some inconsistencies in the statements

  693
  made by different members of the Government. They had been told by the Prime Minister and by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that Gibraltar, Malta, Hong Kong, Cape Town, and the Island of St. Lucia were not involved. An hon. Member had asked on what Colonial and foreign stations it was proposed to spend the £10,000 on the Votes; and the Financial Secretary to the War Office refused to answer, on the ground that it would be against the interests of the public to give the information. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that they had already had the names of the places on which the sums were to be spent. The public knew what the "Dreadnought" cost, and everybody know that there was no strategic secret as to the amount of money which was to be spent on foreign and Colonial stations. He did not know whether this was one of the cases where money voted for one purpose was to be spent upon another. He also wished to protest against the injury which was being done by the War Office, to Eltham Common. In the month of March they were told that the works which were being proceeded with on that Common were for the object of erecting buildings detailed in Vote 10. Since then there had been a change of policy, and the Government was adapting this particular piece of land to what was called "facilitating military drill." He wanted to know for what purpose the money was to be spent. The trees had been cut down on the Common, and its natural charm was being destroyed, while thousands of tons of earth were being removed. He denied that the War Office had any right to deal with Eltham Common at all. That was the attitude taken by the borough of Woolwich. The Common was a very small one, less in size than St. James's Park. The Government told them that they were in favour of preserving rights of way and open spaces and commons; but in this case they were acting in the teeth of their own declaration. He did not believe that this particular common was the sole appanage of the district in which it was situated, but that it belonged to the public generally; and he confessed that it would be a satisfaction to many Members of the House, and still more to people outside, if they had some assurance that this work of destruction on the Common would cease.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the War Office were the Lords of the Manor at Eltham Common and the alterations were being made to facilitate artillery training. Every care was taken to preserve the best of the trees.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [BY ORDER].
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  SUPPLY [11TH JUNE] REPORT.
  Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Fourth Resolution' That a sum, not exceeding —2,436,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Barrack Construction, for Purchases of Land, and for Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad (including Staff in connection therewith), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908,"—resumed. —
  MR. BUCHANAN,continuing his remarks, was understood to say that the purpose for which these alterations were being made was artillery training.
  *MR. REESasked whether only the item of £13,000 was to be taken for rifle ranges. He had understood that a much larger amount would be taken, and this was a matter that very greatly interested his constituency. He had bad occasion to approach the Secretary of State regarding this subject on several occasions, and had always been given to understand that a substantial sum, sufficient to give material assistance in his own and in other constituencies, would be provided. £13,000 would be of little or no use. Help was wanted in many directions.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would look at the Votes he would find that there were other items in Part II. and in Part III. This amount was taken in Part I.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 40. (Division List No. 249.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

  Agnew, George William

  Ginnell, L.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Gulland, John W.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Astbury, John Meir

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Philipps, JWynford (Pembroke

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Halpin, J.

  Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Barker, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Rees, J. D.

  Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset

  Harvey,W.E. (Derbyshire.N.E.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Richards.Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Beauchamp, E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Henderson.Arthur (Durham)

  Richardson, A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Henderson,J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Herbert,Colonel Ivor(Mon.,S.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Robinson, S.

  Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

  Hodge, John

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Billson Alfred

  Hogan, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Brace, William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Russell, T. W.

  Branch, James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Brigg, John

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brunner,J.F.L.(Laucs., Leigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Johnson, John(Gateshead)

  Sears, J. E.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Shackleton, David James

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Joaes,William(Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Joyce, Michael

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cameron, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Snowden, P.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Churchill, Rt, Hon. Winston S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Strauss,E. A. (Abingdon)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Summerbell, T.

  Clough, Willian.

  Levy, Maurice

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Corbett.CH (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Lundon, W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lupton, Arnold '

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan.E.)

  Cox, Harold

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Thorne, William

  Crooks, William

  Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Toulmin, George

  Crossley, William J.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Verney, F. W.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Delany, William

  MacVeigh.Charles (Donegal.E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  M'Killop, W.

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Erskine, David C.

  Massie, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.,

  Essex, R. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Mond, A.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Faber,G. H.( Boston)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlebrough)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Morse, L. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES — Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Murray, James

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Nicholls, George

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nicholson.Charles N(Doncaster

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Nuttall, Harry

  NOES.

  Arnold-Forster.Rt. Hn. HughO

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George.

  Bowles, G Stewart

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Boyles, Sir Edward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stanley.Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

  Kennaway,Rt. Hon.Sir JohnH.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Nield, Herbert

  Major Anstruther-Gray and MR. Claude Hay.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Parker.SirGilbert (Gravesend)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease,HerbertPike( Darlington;

  Fell, Arthur

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee:—
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

    CLASS II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £35,700, 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 of the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant in Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration: "—
    MR. FELLmoved to reduce the Vote by £100. He said he desired to call attention to the Government of the Orange River Colony, to which had just been granted a Constitution almost exactly similar to that granted to the Transvaal. The Orange River Colony as an independent State had been most admirably governed in the past and had never been interfered with from this side. It had no great mineral wealth, as had the Transvaal, but its other resources were steadily increasing. It was an agricultural country pursuing its quiet way, and successfully developing. It was unfortunately dragged into the war in South Africa, and formed the scene of a large portion of the operations which followed. Some of the principal battles took place upon its territory, and it was in its capital that Lord Roberts established his administration, and from that capital that he proceeded to the Transvaal. The Orange River Colony endured great hardships during the war, but it was hoped that the losses it incurred would,
    698
    so far as they could be, be recouped by monetary payments to the inhabitants, and that they would then be able to continue their quiet and prosperous life. Whether there was any necessity to give them this Constitution it was difficult to say. Had there been any demand for it? Of course it was known that the Transvaal, with its great mineral wealth and other resources, must have responsible government given to it, but the conditions of the Orange River Colony were different. They had no great wealth and could not pay such salaries as would be paid to the officials in the Transvaal. The Government of the Orange River Colony would have to be conducted in the most economical way, if the people were to live at all. It would have to be a most moderate Government with the smallest possible staff and lowest possible salaries. But its cost under the new Constitution would be doubled and trebled as compared with the cost of the Government of the country before the war. He did not think there was any evidence of a demand for a Constitution. There was an enormous preponderance of the Dutch element in that Colony, and when this Constitution was granted the power in the Colony would necessarily be placed in the Dutch. He was doubtful whether the Orange River Colony was sufficiently large in wealth or population to be a self-governing Colony, especially when the effect of the Constitution would be immediately to place all the power in the hands of the Party which not so long ago was classed among the enemies of this country. It was a question whether it would not have been better to have waited the result of a year or two's experience of the Transvaal Constitution before granting the Orange River Colony self-government. The granting of that Constitution was a great, bold, and, they hoped, successful policy, but that had

    699
    still to be proved, and while he hoped it would be successful, he thought they, should have waited a year or two to see how it worked before dealing in the same way with the Orange River, Colony. There was in the Orange River Colony a settlement of English settlers who were put there under a grant which was now almost exhausted, owing to its being used for other purposes also, and that was a circumstance which differentiated the Orange River Colony from the Transvaal and a reason why the granting of the Constitution should be deferred. Among those settlers there had been great successes and there had also been failures. The fund, as he had said, had been exhausted, and there were heavy instalments to come from the settlers. He hoped the Government, if these men became hard pressed and unable to pay the instalments on their loans, would see that it was made easy for them, and make them further grants in order to make the settlement a success. He did not know whether the Orange River Colony was to have a portion of the £5,000,000 loan which had been guaranteed for the Transvaal, or whether the Government proposed to grant a separate loan to the Orange River Colony. He imagined that the Orange River Colony would feel aggrieved if their wealthy neighbour received this great benefit while they were left out altogether, and had to struggle on with the small capital they possessed. Then there was the native question. The Orange River Colony had its native question just as the Transvaal had, and that was the question they had to attempt to solve. But while in the Constitution of the Transvaal the Home Government had reserved the native question for their own consideration, they had given much larger powers to the Orange River Colony, whore the native question would come very slightly within the scope or under the control of the Government or Parliament in this country. We could not in this country appreciate the position of the white men amongst these coloured people. We could not at all feel as the white men felt who were surrounded by these natives. The Boers knew how to manage them admirably; they were not afraid to deal with them at one time with excessive severity and at another with exceeding kindness. If necessary they flogged them, and the natives would rather have that than he
    700
    treated in the supercilious way in which Englishmen treated them. The Boers made friends of them, although they punished them; they made them almost as friends of the family. The Englishmen did them justice, but they could rarely get the sympathies of the natives in the way that some of them would like. From London we wanted to treat them exactly as we treated Englishmen, but we could not do that. What we thought was kindness they probably regarded as an insult, and what we thought was friendly to them they thought we only did because we were afraid. The Government were going to give these larger powers to the Orange River Colony instead of reserving the question to the Home Government, as in the case of the Transvaal, and he thought they were doing a wise thing. It was a small colony which was very much admired by Englishmen, with which they had the greatest sympathy, and for which they wished the brightest future. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £35,600 be granted for the said service."—(MR. FELL.)
    *MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he desired to call attention to the question of municipal government in Port of Spain, Trinidad. For some years the people of Port of Spain had been appealing to the Government for the restoration of the municipal council which they had previous to the year 1898. Whatever were the causes which led up to the riots in 1893, and to the taking away of the borough council from Port of Spain, he submitted that it was unfair that this Government should identify itself with anything that was going to penalise Port of Spain in regard to taking away its municipal government. The Government had to recognise that whatever dereliction of duty took place the whole of the members of the council had been elected by the middle and upper classes; and in order to justify what he said with regard to the people who elected the borough council at that time, he would quote a few words uttered by the Secretary of State in 1898. The right hon. Gentleman said he found that the municipal constituency of

    701
    Port of Spain was only 627 out of a total population of nearly 50,000, and that it was believed that a more extended franchise would produce better results than had been achieved up to the present time. Six hundred out of 50,000 ! He ventured to assert that a council, elected on such a franchise, was returned by the middle and upper classes. To continue to penalise the people for the acts of those persons, who composed the council at that time, was in his opinion unfair. In fact he thought he was right in asserting that the limited franchise had had a great deal to do with the riots, and in support of that argument he would quote the Gazette Extraordinary, issued in 1896, which stated—
    "Our attention was specially drawn to that portion of the Governor's telegraphic despatch of the 24th of March, reporting the riots, in which it is stated that the public excitement had' been increased by several public meetings called together by those who demand representative Government, and the whole excitement turned in that direction.' "
    That being the case, he was sorry to have to admit that the present Government had given its sanction to the course of not restoring the borough council which the people had had for fifty years before 1898, but to create a wholly nominated board for the municipal government of Port of Spain, in which the working classes would have no say whatever. No man would be entitled to sit upon the board unless he had an annual rental of £20. That would practically debar the whole of the working classes of Port of Spain from having any part or parcel in the municipal government of their own town. Ho was also able to quote the opinion of high officials of Trinidad in regard to the contention that the £20 qualification was too high. He found that part of the Committee who had to do with the question recommended that the franchise should include occupiers at not exceeding £12 per annum: that would ensure a considerable electorate, they said; and, further, they communicated with the Secretary of State, to whom they stated their recommendation. He was, therefore, very sorry that the Government had fixed the qualification at £20, especially in view of the fact that in Trinidad to-day there were smaller towns such as San Fernando and Arima, which were enjoying full municipal authority
    702
    similar to that enjoyed in Port of Spain previous to 1898. Why the Government should refuse to give assent to municipal government being restored to Port of Spain, which was the capital of Trinidad, he could not for a moment conceive. There could be no doubt that had the report made in 1898 in favour of a wider representation, sent in by the ratepayers of Port of Spain, been received in time, they would not have had this nominated board created. The Gazatte Extraordinary went on to say—
    "The fifth enclosure to this despatch is a petition, in original, which was handed to the Governor (Sir Henry Jackson) on 30th March, the day preceding that fixed for his departure from the colony, by a deputation composed of Messrs. Goodwille and David, Dr. Masson and Mr. Lazare. An examination of the signatures appended to this petition will show that it is supported by nearly 700 firms or individuals, comprising with a few exceptions the leading business establishments, professional men and property owners in Fort of Spain. The petition protests against the vote of the legislative council; states the opinion that a municipal council, whose members should be elected by popular franchise, is required by local conditions; and begs to support the Governor's suggestion, as detailed by me in paragraph 7 of this despatch. The petition is unquestionably supported by a large majority of these most intimately concerned, and its signatories must be regarded as forming a very highly representative body of men. It is to be regretted, however, that if they hold strongly the opinions which they now in this petition express, they should have refrained from giving expression to them at an earlier stage of the discussion. Had the Legislative Council been in possession of a similar strong statement of combined public opinion upon the subject prior to March 14th, it is at least possible that its action would thereby have been very materially affected."
    That was signed by Mr. Hugh Clifford, acting Governor of Trinidad. In face of that information, and in face of that opinion, he submitted that the Government should have hesitated before putting on one side the appeals of the people of Port of Spain and saddling upon them, for two or three years, this nominated board. But what applied to Port of Spain unfortunately applied to many of the towns of the West Indies. We failed to trust the people. If we trusted them more, and gave them an opportunity of sharing in the government of the towns we would have better results than we had had up to the present time. It might not be too late to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to give a promise that after this nominated

    703
    board had existed for a year or two the Government should consider the question of giving an elective council to Port of Spain. He did not think it was too much to ask that they should trust the people of the West Indies with a larger measure of representation. In Georgetown, out of a population of 48,843 there were only 297 voters, and a franchise like that in regard to municipal government was a farce. He appealed to the Government, who had trusted the people in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, to look with a more sympathetic eye upon the people in the towns he had mentioned, because they had a right to participate more in local government. For a number of years they had been introducing into Trinidad a large number of indentured coolies for the sugar planters, who were subsidised by the Government. According to statistics worked out by the Receiver-General of Trinidad the immigration account from the 1st of October, 1904, to the 30th of September 1906, was as follows:—Immigration taxes received on sugar, molasses and rum, £38,708; immigration taxes received on cocoa, coffee, etc., £17,413; indenture fees paid by the planters, £22,151; balance due by the Government to the planters on the 30th September, 1904, £5,882; total amount paid by the planters from 1st October, 1904 to 30th September, 1906, £84,155;total amount due to the Government by the planters on the 30th September, 1906, £1,646; total amount paid by the Government in respect of immigration from 1st October, 1904, to 30th September, 1906, less £1,646 advanced to planters, £41,237. In his opinion there was plenty of room for economy in this respect. At the present time there were about 13,000 labourers in the island out of a population of 300,000. The average cost of introducing these indentured coolies worked out at about £25 per head. The cocoa and sugar planters asked that this year they should be permitted to introduce from the East Indies 2,314 coolies, but he found that the Legislative Council had decreased that number to 1,800. He would probably be told that there had been a failure of the cocoa crops, but if that was the case and a large number of labourers were released, why did the cocoa and sugar planters demand that they should be allowed to have the increased
    704
    number of labourers they asked for at the beginning of the present year There was room for a further diminution in the number of coolies for two reasons. In Trinidad, at the present time, there were a large number of residents unemployed, and they were men who were quite willing to do this work provided they were paid a sufficient wage. They could not, however, expect the men of the West Indies to go out and work for Is. per day, which was the amount of the wages paid to the coolies introduced from the East Indies. That there was plenty of surplus labour in the island was proved by the fact that the Government had given the American Government permission to recruit labour in Trinidad and more particularly in Port of Spain. Owing to this dumping of labourers in Trinidad with the assistance and consent of the Government the wages upon the cocoa estates alone had been reduced during the last twenty years from 60 cents per day to 35 cents per day, or about one-half. Those who had resided in Trinidad for many years had opposed the introduction of the coolies because there was in that town such a large number of unemployed, and that had led to a great decrease in the wages paid. With regard to committals for breaches of the law by these East Indian coolies they were as follows:— 1903–4, 1,745 out of 3,629; 1904–5, 1,906 out of 3,955; and in 1905–6, 1,659 out of 3,574, or an average of over 45 per cent. He hoped the Under-Secretary would be able to give his attention to these points.
    MR. JOYCEsaid he desired to call attention to the case of some men who had been imprisoned for nearly four-and-a-half years in South Africa. Early in 1903, after the war was over, a Leinster regiment were coming down from the seat of war, and naturally the usual military discipline was somewhat relaxed. A number of the men went on a "spree" to Pretoria, and when the picket was called out to arrest them there was a row. Whilst the row was taking place a rifle was fired, and one of the pickets was shot and died from the effects of his wound. A number of men were arrested, and five were tried for murder. Finally sentence of death was passed on one man named John Roche, and the charge in the case of the other four was reduced to manslaughter.

    705
    Although the jury found all the six guilty they recommended the prisoners to mercy. One of the men was sentenced to death, another got twenty years penal servitude, and three others were sentenced to fifteen years penal servitude. In the early part of April, 1903, it came as a shock to him that two of these men were constituents of his own, and one of them was the man who was sentenced to death. At the time he put a Question to the then Colonial Secretary the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who gave him a most sympathetic reply. He should never forget the right hon. Gentleman's kindness and practical sympathy during the few days he was trying to get something done for the unfortunate man who was sentenced to death. The result was that the clemency of the Crown was extended to that roan, and the sentence was reduced to one of transportation for life. During the year 1906 one of the five men was released. Two petitions were sent last year to the lieutenant-governor praying for mercy towards the four still in prison. From a return in regard to military prisoners in South Africa, he found that the conduct of these four men was marked "exemplary." The unfortunate occurrence in which a man lost his life was not premeditated. It was the result of a drunken spree, and it was not known even now who fired the shot. He really thought that the time had come when something might be done for the men. The crime of which they were convicted was not committed by ordinary criminals. Discipline being relaxed at the end of a long campaign in which these men had been serving this country, they got drunk, and the fatal shot was fired while they were in that condition. He hoped that the Under-Secretary of State would he able to give some sympathetic assurance in reply to his appeal. The prisoners were young men, and if the clemency of the Crown were extended to them now, they would be liberated before they were too old to be of any use in the world.
    *MR. MACKARNESSsaid the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth seemed to have the impression that there was no demand for self government in the Orange River Colony. There was no ground for that opinion. The hon. Member could not
    706
    have read what had been going on in the Orange River Colony or he would not have made the statement. There had been meetings held and speeches made in the Orange River Colony in favour of self-government. Moreover, the hon. Member seemed to be entirely oblivious of the fact that the Orange River Colony was a party to the Treaty of Vereeniging in which self-government was promised to it as well as to the Transvaal. The grant of self-government was in every way justified, but he wished to suggest to his right hon. friend the Under-Secretary that, in regard to the constitution of a Second Chamber for the Orange River Colony, the example adopted for the Transvaal should not be followed. In the Transvaal Lord Selborne nominated a number of gentlemen to form the Second Chamber who were not only out of harmony with the popularly elected Chamber,,but were so entirely unknown that, from the beginning, the Second Chamber was an object of ridicule. After the names of the nominated Chamber had been announced, he met a friend who had been living in London for a year or so, but who had lived for many years in the Transvaal. His friend said to him, "How long it must have been since I left the Transvaal! There is hardly a single gentleman I know among those who have been nominated for the Second Chamber." That expression represented the prevailing feeling among others who knew the Transvaal. Nobody could understand upon what principle the Second Chamber had been nominated, and on the very first day it came into conflict with the popular Chamber, it at once had to give way. If it were intended as a check upon the popular Chamber it was utterly useless. If that was the case in the Transvaal, where there was a large admixture of the two races, the position of such a Chamber would be much worse in the Orange River Colony, where there would be a very large Afrikander majority in the lower Chamber. He appealed to the Government, therefore, to wait until the elections had taken place and a responsible Government had been formed, and then, after consulting that Government in a constitutional way, to bring into existence a Second Chamber which would work more in harmony with the popular one.
    *DR. RUTHERFORDsupported the appeal to His Majesty's Government to wait until they could appoint a Second Chamber for the Orange River Colony in amore satisfactory manner than had been the case in the Transvaal. He congratulated the Government on the bold and wise step they had taken in giving the Orange River Colony full constitutional power. It was a step which would stand out in history as the wisest and noblest they had taken. That reparation was due to the Orange River Colony, just as it was due to the Transvaal. No more criminal act was ever performed by this country than when those two South African Republics were deprived of their freedom. He and those who shared his views rejoiced that at last England was standing up for freedom. A difficult problem with which they were faced in South Africa was the treatment of British Indians. They were suffering from serious disabilities. Protests having been made in South Africa, India, and also in this country, Lord Elgin took a wise and proper course when he disallowed the Transvaal ordinance. He regretted that the Colonial Secretary had since departed from the policy then indicated. He and his friends did not hide from themselves the serious difficulties attending this problem. After all, the Transvaal was a self-governing Colony, and they felt it would be difficult for the home Government to interfere. At the same time the Indians were subjects of the King, and it was for the Imperial Government as the supreme power to do all that could be done for them in the interest of justice and righteousness. Ho might remind the Committee that! there were in Natal 100,000 Indians—55,000 indentured, 15,000 free, and 30,000 freed. In the Transvaal there were- 13,000; in the Cape Colony 10,000, and in the Orange River Colony the number was infinitesimal, only some forty or fifty. These British Indians were introduced into Natal in the "forties" as indentured labourers. As a matter of fact the Natal Government voted the sum of £10,000 per annum to encourage their introduction. They had it on the best authority that these men had done a great deal to bring about the success of the Colony at a very critical period of its history. MR. Garland, a Member of the
    708
    Natal Parliament, dealt with this matter in the following terms—
    "And at the last, as the only thing to be done, the immigration of Indians was entered upon, and the Legislature very wisely rendered their support, and help to this all important scheme. At the time it was entered upon, the progress and almost the existence of the Colony hung in the balance. And now what is the result of this scheme of immigration? Financially £10,000 has been advanced yearly out of the Treasury of the Colony. With what result? Just this, that no vote ever made of money to develop the industries of the Colony or to promote its interests in any way in this Colony has yielded such a financial profitable return as that shown by the introduction of coolies as labourers into this Colony. …I believe the Durban population of Europeans, had no such labour been supplied as was required for Colonial industries, would be less by at least a. half what it is to-day, and five workmen only would be required whereas twenty now have employment. Property in Durban generally would have remained at the value some 300 or 400 per cent. below that which now obtains, and the lands in the Colony and other towns, in proportion according to the value of property in Durban, and coast-lands would never have realised what they now sell at."
    What crime had the Indians committed? They were told that the Indians had been the salvation practically of the Colony; why then should they be treated in this unjust and derogatory manner? So far as he could understand it was because these men, when they had won their freedom, felt that they had a higher vocation in life and entered into competition with Europeans. What he might call the anti-Indian legislation began in Natal and then passed to the other Colonies. He did not want to deal with all the disabilities imposed on the Indians. There was the Dealers Licence Act. He bad asked many Questions with reference to that Act, and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies had told the House how many industrious Indian shopkeepers, who had lived for many years in Natal, had been deprived of their licence by the local authorities, many of whose members were in competition with them, and accordingly biassed against them. The injustice of the Act was revealed in the fact that there was no appeal from their decision to the Supreme Court. Again, under the Municipal Corporation Act the Indians had been deprived of the last rag of their civil rights. They were welcomed as labourers, but directly they rose above

    709
    that status the, British made a set against them. In the Transvaal the law passed by the Boer Government would not allow them to hold land, and placed other irritating restrictions upon them. Fortunately that Act was practically a dead letter, at least it was not rigorously enforced, but when the Colony was taken over by the British Government the law was tightened up and enforced. Lord Elgin was asked last year to sanction what was called the "Peace Preservation Ordinance," which was directed against the Indians, and the only reason given for the Ordinance was that it was to prevent a great influx of Indians to the Transvaal over the border from Natal. But the figures in favour of it were grossly exaggerated, because it was proved that they never amounted to more than a hundred a month. But the Ordinance) did far more than that, it degraded and drove out Indians, who had been after all for many years a source of commercial development in the Transvaal as well as in Natal. In the course of a discussion on this point in another place Lord Lansdowne said—
    "The question is, does this new law really secure what the noble Earl (Lord Elgin) means by fair treatment? I own that I have a little difficulty in persuading myself that it does, because we have on record the statement of the noble Karl that the Ordinance which His Majesty's Government in the first instance disallowed contained proposals which could not be regarded as affording an adequate measure of relief from the disabilities to which the British Indians were subject in the Transvaal, and therefore fell far short of the reforms repeatedly pressed upon the Government of the South African Republic. Now the noble Earl tells us that the Act which has been passed differs very little from the Ordinance which he denounced in clear and emphatic language; therefore, we certainly cannot congratulate the noble Earl upon having succeeded in obtaining for British Indians what he himself has described as fair treatment."
    And the noble Lord wont on to say that —
    "Even supposing that a few hundred more of these people had succeeded in crossing the front or, that is surely a lesser evil than even in appearance to throw over the interests of these Indians, who themselves look to you for protection, and whose fellow-countrymen in India are watching what is taking place."
    He realised the difficulties the Home Government had to contend with in dealing with the self-governing Colonies. But he thought the Government ought to have made it one of the conditions upon which the £5,000,000 loan to the Transvaal was to be guaranteed that fair
    710
    treatment should be accorded to British Indians in that Colony. In Cape Colony equal rights were meted out to the Indians once they got in. There was an educational test in the way of their getting in. Yiddish was accepted as a test for foreigners. He thought that Hindustani should be included in the educational test for British Indians. It was said that that would not make these Colonies a whiteman's country. That was an impossibility. There were two great laws which provided an insuperable bar to South Africa being made an exclusively white man's country. These were natural and divine. The Almighty drew no colour bar, and he had yet to learn that God had made South Africa for whites and Europeans. At present it was practically a black man's country and must largely remain a black man's country. It was a country in which the Indians could live, and they would do great good to the Colonies and bring distinction to this country. The treatment the Indians were at present receiving in South Africa might have serious consequences in India. Supposing the Indians in India retaliated— supposing they said that India was a coloured man's country and that the whites should clear out He hoped that in the interest of liberty, justice, and righteousness the Home Government would use their best endeavours to get rid of the servile conditions under which British Indians suffered in South Africa.
    MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover-Square)said a good many topics had been introduced, but he made no apology to the Committee for concentrating his observations upon South Africa which still claimed their principal attention concerning Colonial matters. A few days ago the Constitution for the Orange River Colon' was promulgated, and he admitted there was nothing in it but what had been anticipated, and there was no doubt that in a few weeks both the provinces annexed in 1902 would pass for the time being under the unqualified sway of Governments against whom we lately strove and prevailed. He did not desire to exaggerate the difference between Parties on this subject; it was right to remember that self-government in the two provinces was the ultimate goal both Parties wished to reach, and in the instrument which scaled the peace Lords Milner

    711
    and Kitchener deliberately and solemnly recorded that intention. Nor did he desire to ignore the difference that prevailed between Parties as to the time it would be wise or expedient to grant the Constitutions, He and his friends were compelled at the time, by reason, as they thought, of the premature character of the grant, to dissociate themselves from the responsibility that attended the transition from Crown Colony Government to complete independence. But from first to last they had expressed the hope that their misgivings would not be realised, and it would be ungenerous not to acknowledge that General Both a, when he visited this country, earned respect and esteem by the language in which he expressed his future intentions. But there was another aspect of the matter with which it would be wrong not to deal. He did not wish to deal with it in a partisan or unnecessarily controversial way, but it was useless to deny that in the annexed provinces there were two Parties with racial differences. The object of every Party in the House was the ultimate concord and harmony between the two races, but with all the earnestness in his power he said that nothing could be more odious, nothing could be more calculated to weaken the chances of co-operation and harmony between the two races, than for any Government in the country to show favour or undue preference to the one or the other. It was right surely to appreciate in the House, and with a majority constituted as it was—it was right to endeavour to appreciate the British point of view in the Colony as well as that of the Dutch. Hundreds, and he might say perhaps thousands, of men had given up their employment in this country and had sought South Africa after the war, had settled upon land or embarked in business there, or were following the professions of engineering, law, or medicine. They did this full of hope that the country where they proposed to settle would be ruled by British counsels and controlled by British statesman. For years they had been the subject of a storm of controversy, their principal industry had been the subject of menace by Government supporters, and the result had been of late—he did not say it was entirely attributable to that, but disaster had fallen on the country and the offices in which English-
    712
    men, Scotsmen, and Irishmen were placed; industry had been arrested and professions depressed, some of them paralysed, ruin and misery overtaking many of those who had made costly sacrifices to settle in the country. Human nature being what it was, it was natural that the iron had entered into the soul of many of the men, and that they should feel bitter resentment against those to whom they attributed the losses they had sustained. These men did not and could not join in the complaisant chorus which in this country had glorified the Government as they thought at their expense; they were not enthusiastic in support of Party Government, to whose success in this country they attributed many of their losses. Indeed, it was not unnatural that they were disposed to attribute to the indifference and the apathy of the many in this country the fact that that interest had been sacrificed. We ought not 6,000 miles away, and, in a manner, secure from the consequences of our own action, to resent this natural feeling of bitterness. The policy which had been undertaken was irrevocable; and therefore it was our duty to look steadily at the good elements rather than the bad. He had a profound sympathy with the feelings of the British in South Africa, and he would offer them this ground of hope and encouragement. The principle of the equality of the white races in South Africa had been asserted. In the last four years a marvellous work of reconstruction and recuperation had been achieved by the British. Their ability, energy, credit, and resource had built up a community desolated by war. This wonderful fabric having been nearly completed, it would be a source of pride for all time to Britons to have said—. "Here is our work. Here is the country restored by our toil and sacrifice. We hand it over to you against whom we lately strove; and we do it without advantage or reward." Such a policy might be Quixotic, but no one who had been the subject of that policy could do other than feel that national pride and national self-esteem had been vindicated, and that the race which had done such a thing had a right to hold its head high among the nations of the world. But if we asked the British population of the new Colonies to look at the matter in that light, and to regard the sacrifice with hope, surely it

    713
    was a corresponding duty on the part of His Majesty's Government to show to that population the most scrupulous impartiality, to be straightforward and open in their dealings, and to abandon all indirect political motive. He wished to put the policy of His Majesty's Government to those tests. No explanation had ever been given as to why manhood suffrage was established in these Colonies. It did not exist anywhere else in South Africa. Previous to the war there was a high property qualification, both in the Orange River State and in the Transvaal. Why was this now precedent started? He did not wish to be put off in this matter by the reading of rhetorical extracts—he would not say platitudes —from Liberal maxim books as to the liberty and general equality of man. That position was now negatived, for, having excluded the natives from the franchise, the Government could not have resort to that argument. Then what was the explanation—and he asked for details—of the financial attitude and policy of the Transvaal Government? He would not attempt to discuss the details of the forthcoming Bill, but he was anxious to consider what the effect of the promise of the Government was, a promise which had encouraged—he would go further and say which had enabled— the Transvaal to put out a loan and to borrow money. Was that policy justifiable, was it oven intelligible? What was the financial situation in the Transvaal? There was a population of about 300,000 whites. There was a State debt of £35,000,000, and a municipal debt of £8,000,000, making a total of £43,000,000, or £140 of debt per head of the population. Prima facie, was that a country, in the circumstances which existed at present, which they could encourage to borrow and to lay upon themselves a further annual burden of £200,000 a year? The Colonial Treasurer of the Transvaal in June, 1906, stated in his report that the revenues of the Colony showed no tendency towards expansion, that much expenditure was still required to promote the development of the colony, and, if a reasonable rate of progress was to be maintained, substantial sums must be provided annually for the purpose, but in the present financial condition of the colony it Would be highly unwise to have recourse to further borrowing.
    714
    Had things grown better since June, 1906? He found that MR. Smuts, the Colonial Secretary, in April said that the financial question was the root problem before them; they wanted money; that the fall in the revenue had been progressive, and there was no stoppage to it. In those conditions surely it was extravagant finance to borrow at ail, and inexpedient to encourage and enable the Transvaal to borrow. Surely it was unjust to the Cape Colony and to Natal, who both needed money and were about to float a loan, and who could not float a loan with any prospect of success with this guaranteed loan hanging over their heads. Was this encouragement by the present Government of the Transvaal to borrow money treating with scrupulous impartiality and fairness the British population? When he was at the Colonial Office he was told that 85 per cent. of the revenue of the Transvaal came from the mines; in other word, from those who represented the British, connection there. Therefore 85 per cent. of the taxation of the Transvaal fell upon the urban population, which was mainly British, and 15 per cent. on the rural population, which was mainly Dutch. This £5,000,000, which was to be added to the £43,000,000 under which the Colony was already burdened, would be paid as to 85 percent. of it by the urban population.. How was it to be applied? He thought he was absolutely the first voice in the country to advocate a policy of pecuniary liberality to the Boers after the war, and he had always favoured expenditure on behalf of the agriculturists in that country. But there must be some measure or limit. He thought £10,000,000 had already been, spent on their Dutch fellow-subjects alone in the' Transvaal, and they were going to add. £5,000,000. The proceeds of this loan were to be applied as to £2,500,000 to land banks, railways, and irrigation—all agricultural purposes! He did not wish to put it bitterly for one moment, for he was glad that they should have money if it could be done without injustice to other people, but what was the position of the Dutch rural population with regard to these land banks? The Under-Secretary would say that there would be the security of the land, and they would be able to pay back the money. But the Dutch farmers were

    715
    already indebted to the Government of the Transvaal for £2,000,000 in respect of the loans which were issued before their repatriation. They had been given time for repayment of those loans, but he was told that there was little prospect of recovering any part of the £2,000,000. They were going to give to men who were already their debtors to the extent of £2,000,000 an additional sum of £2,500,000, he supposed with an equally small chance of recovering the money. Surely, the House must recognise that that was an interference with and a reversal of the natural economic position of the country. The Transvaal could not have raised the loan without the credit of the Government behind them except upon terms so exorbitant that it would have been impossible for them even to consider it. This free-trade Government had interfered with the natural barrier against a country which was not rich enough to increase its obligations, by standing behind them and imposing upon the British population of the country heavy taxation almost entirely for the benefit of the Dutch. He did not think finance of that kind could possibly be justified. What had been the policy of the Government with regard to land settlement? Parliament voted £3,000,000 for land settlement, for Canadians, Australians, and Britons, and £500,000 of that sum had been arrested. How differently they treated their own population. The Government actually withhold from them the money which had been granted to them by that House. They might have reasons for doing so, but he had never heard them. Let them contrast that treatment with the behaviour of the Government to their Dutch fellow-subjects. Having already given them time to pay a debt of £2,000,000, the Government increased the benefits they had conferred upon them to the extent of several millions more. They placed the whole weight of the taxation, not upon the people who benefited, but on the people who were opposed to their policy, and with whose industry they had seriously interfered. Concurrently with the adoption of this financial measure there had been a modification of the policy of the Transvaal Government upon the labour question. General Smuts in January last was prepared to make an arrangement under which
    716
    there would have been a native labourer to take the place of every Chinaman before the Chinaman was sent away. In February he said they did not wish to cripple the mining industry, and guaranteed a substitute to take the place of each Chinese labourer. That was again announced in Lord Selborne's speech. General Botha had now obtained a promise of the assistance of His Majesty's Government under the circumstances which he had already stated, of a further borrowing from this country to which they already owed £2,000,000. He was aware that the Under-Secretary in that House, and that, according to the newspaper reports, General Botha also, had denied that there was any bargain with reference to this matter. He accepted their word, but everything depended on the meaning attached to the word bargain. There was a very strong wish, for political reasons, on the part of gentlemen in a certain quarter of that House that the Chinese should be repatriated; there was a strong wish on the part of General Botha to have the credit of the Imperial Government to guarantee his loan. He accepted the assurance that there had been no bargain, as the parties honestly believed; but was the simultaneous gratification of both these wishes a matter of pure coincidence or not? If it was not a pure coincidence, how were the two related? Were they totally independent transactions, or were they one transaction? There were certain wishes so strongly denied by two persons, and so mutually advantageous that they did not need to become the subject of bargaining. He did not pretend to fathom what had happened. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would explain what relation, if any, those two transactions had. He wished very succinctly to pat before the House the policy of native labour in replacement of Chinese labour. Everybody would wish that native labour, if its physical conditions were sufficiently strong, and if no compulsion were applied to it, should be employed rather than yellow labour, and the policy of the late Government was never to supplant natives, it was only to supplement them. Of course, every Member who thought must know that there were very many great objections to introducing natives not fitted for the purpose into the mines.

    717
    A very little over-pressure in that matter brought about a rate of mortality sometimes three times, always twice, as great as the rate among the Chinese. Therefore they would be carrying on an industry with a death-rate twice, three times, and sometimes even five or six times, larger than that of the Chinese. There was no real difference in principle between the two. Both were indentured labourers and both came from a distance, and the moral question was in the case of many tribes more urgent with the natives than with the Chinese. Therefore, so far as he had been able to apply his mind to the subject, it was a mystery to him how any thinking man could draw any grave distinction between the responsibility of those who indentured Chinese and those who indentured natives. He regretted to say, with regard to the present leaders of the Transvaal, that the policy which they had adopted in regard to the replacement of Chinese by natives was one which the House ought to watch in connection with the expressed intention of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal. In 1903, before the Labour Commission, speaking with deliberation and care in the matter, he said, in answer to the question—
    "Would you recommend the breaking up of locations like Swaziland, Zululand, and Basutoland?" "I would suggest that those countries be given to the white people to live in."
    Then the question was put,—
    "You suggest that we should break up such lands as Swaziland, Zululand, and Basutoland? These are great native reserves,"
    and he answered, —
    "Yes, I say such places are a serious evil. It is building up a Kaffir kingdom in the midst of us. It is not only bad for the Kaffirs themselves, but a danger for the future." "You want to cut up the lands into farms and give it to the white man and retain the Kaffirs on the farms?" "Yes."
    He did not know whether hon. Members appreciated the significance of that. It showed that a few years ago the policy
    718
    of General Botha was to force the Kaffirs to work by breaking up their reserves. If that method was pursued in the Transvaal, the Party opposite, who thought themselves the Party of morality in this matter, would lend themselves to a transaction which would first get rid of men who were working voluntarily and under the same moral conditions as the blacks, and substitute for them men not fitted for the task, but forced into the mines by having their reserves broken up, and by having taxation placed upon them which they were not able to bear. And they would have the further responsibility of removing the natural barrier protecting the natives against abitrary acts such as breaking up their reserves and forcing them to labour. The consequences of the removal of such a natural barrier was often rebellion which brought disaster upon the community which inflicted the injustice. They were removing that barrier because they had 15,000 British troops there ready to put down any native rising. Therefore, he urged the Government to watch well the responsibility they had in this matter. At any rate, let them not go into the country and endeavour once more to delude the people into the belief, which he thought they had happily given up, that their Party was the Party of high morality in these matters and that the Opposition only had been tinged with the cursed thing. He did not wish to dwell upon that. He wished rather to say, as he said at the beginning of his remarks, that the British population in South Africa had a right to equal treatment, and need not have the slightest apprehension that they would not be allowed to enter into peaceful and harmonious competition with their Dutch fellow-subjects in the country. He would never believe that the people of this country, if they knew it, would permit for a moment an unjust discrimination against them. Whatever their numbers in that House, however small they might be, they would take care to see that their principles were not violated.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The hon. Member for Sunderland made a speech upon the town council at Port of Spain. I should like to say that the arrangements at present in force are of a temporary nature, and that in a couple of years the whole question of extending native institutions will be reviewed. In regard to the speech of the Member for Limerick on the subject of private soldiers recently in the Leinster Regiment, now in penal servitude in South Africa in connection with an affray some years ago, I could not speak on the spur of the moment on a matter of that kind; but I am of opinion that when a question of this character is raised by an hon. Member in his place on his responsibility, it is a matter which must be gone into specifically by the Department concerned, and I will cause inquiry to be made, but as to what result the inquiry will produce I cannot speak at present. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has confined his remarks exclusively to South Africa; and I am very glad he did so, because I think there is scarcely any part of the wide and various dominions at present administered under the Colonial Office, of our record in regard to which and of our policy in regard to which I should be more confident in making a statement to the House of Commons. What has been the great event of the last year in South Africa? It has been the establishment of government by consent in the two newly-acquired colonies. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was no difference in principle between us. The difference, he said, existed as to time. Yes; and I can quite see that time in such a matter may be an element of vital importance. Sir, there was a policy of delay in granting self-government promised by the Treaty of Vereeniging which would have had most injurious effects. What was that policy? It was a policy of maintaining the authority of the Crown in that
    720
    country by force, by bayonets, by a great garrison maintained thorp over a considerable period of years. I have heard it said that you can do anything in the world with bayonets except sit down upon thorn. But a great garrison was to be kept there a long time, and in the meanwhile efforts were to be made to create a population to outvote the permanent residents in the country. Every effort which Lord Milner's ingenuity and tenacity could suggest was applied. Land settlers were planted regardless of expense upon the soil. A cosmopolitan population of immigrants were encouraged from all parts of the world to enter the country. The great hope of creating an artificial boom in mining shares, and so erecting an artificial state of development, led to the wild experiment of importing thousands of Chinese from the other end of the world. It is scarcely necessary to say that all these plans were utterly visionary. The Chinese, from whose importation such results were hoped, proved detrimental at every stage to the employment of white labour. Whereas before their advent in May, 1904, the employment of white men working stamps was as one to six natives, in March, 1907, it was less than one to nine. And there is scarcely a point of view from which you can examine the gold industry, now that Chinese have been imported and before the period when they arrived, in which there is not a sensible degradation in the industry in the sense of the smaller employment of white labour in proportion to the natives, to stamps, and to output of gold. Of this population which was to be obtained in Johannesburg to outvote the Boers, half the indispensable voters at the election voted for the Party which is now in power in the Transvaal, and against the mine-owners and progressive leaders, who, we have always been told, were the only people entitled to speak for them. And even some of the land settlers who were planted on the soil at so much labour and so much cost have, I am credibly informed, preferred to vote for Dutchmen in

    721
    certain parts of the country because they think Dutchmen understand better and are more sympathetic to the needs of an agricultural community. So much for those calculations. They must, in any case, have been wrong, but, even if they had been right, what permanent, abiding security would they have offered? You would have had, oven if an artificial majority of a heterogeneous character, mostly in passage through the country, had boon obtained, all the most powerful, most permanent, and most formidable elements of the country divorced from any share in the responsibility and burden of administration; and when yon have, the really powerful and permanent elements in the country not effectively represented in its government grave political instability will result. From all this kind of weary, tedious, nightmare pilgrimages it has been our task to recall the mind and the conscience of the country. If we have had any degree of success in that endeavour, it has not been because we have employed any very astute or adroit measures. It is because we have followed a very simple and straightforward plan. We have established a democratic Constitution. We have held a free and open election. We have insisted that the real loaders of the Parliament elected at that election shall forthwith, in their own proper persons, assume the burden of government, with all its labours, with all its difficulties and dangers, and with all its advantages and honour. The right hon. Gentleman complains that we have introduced in our Constitution the provision of manhood suffrage. Well, I am quite prepared to defend manhood suffrage on its merits. But I will also admit that there is much force in what the right hon. Gentleman says of the difficulties of assimilating the different franchises of the different States in South Africa when, as we look forward, federation may come into practical politics. I agree that there is a difficulty as far as the natives are concerned, but it is not a difficulty which cannot be removed.
    722
    But apart from the merits of the subject, which I should be quite prepared to justify if I had time to go into it, we were endeavouring to make a constitutional settlement as between two races, and many things which the British contended for were granted to them. One vote one value, single member constituencies, six months residential qualification —all these are points to which the British attached special importance; all were secured to them in the Constitution. But, on the other hand, the representatives of the Boers put forward a request that manhood suffrage, which would enfranchise the sons of farmers and the day labourers who worked hard on the farms, should also be admitted; and while I do not say for a moment there was a bargain, I do say that there was a balancing of one set of considerations against the other in our Constitution. That is why it is that manhood suffrage figures in the Transvaal Constitution. When we came to the Orange River Constitution the question arose, should we treat the Orange River Colony differently from the way in which we treated the Transvaal? There were, on the face of it, many reasons for treating them differently; but there was one great reason against treating them differently —you would be exciting suspicion, you would be exciting fear that you were discriminating adversely against the Orange River Colony, because, forsooth ! the balances of population in the Colony were not as nicely adjusted as in the Transvaal; and we have felt it was important above all things to preserve that confidence which has been largely extended to us by both sections of the population in South Africa by proceeding on a perfectly simple rule in regard to the Orange River Colony, by treating it exactly the same in all essential particulars as the Transvaal. I would only say, in passing from this subject, that our task has not been the same task as the Party opposite had sot before them-solves when they were in office. As to their task, I do not comment upon it,

    723
    but our task was the task of reconciliation, and I am quite ready to admit that we had a great many advantages in that task which were not enjoyed by the right hon. Gentleman who has addressed us this evening. We had this great advantage, that there is at the head of His Majesty's Government a Prime Minister, and thefts are in it a number of Ministers of high position like my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, and like my right hon. friend who is present on this Bench, who command a great measure of esteem throughout all sections of the Dutch race in South Africa, and words of peace and amity and reconciliation do not ring false when spoken from their lips. There is another subject on which I think we are entitled to congratulate ourselves. We have reached the end of Chinese labour. It has been decisively condemned by the verdict of the local administration. The House is going to witness within a few days—certainly within a few weeks—the spectacle of live Chinamen in real ships steering eastward. Upwards of 17,000 will have left the country before Christmas, and Sir George Farrer, the Leader of the Progressive Party, speaking in the Transvaal Parliament, has admitted that it is inevitable that the rest should follow. There is only one question upon this subject which I think I will venture to answer now. We have been asked why did we leave it to the Transvaal Parliament, why did we not, feeling so strongly as we did on this subject, utilise our power from this country to remove the Chinese before the new Government came in? Until there was an election in the Transvaal no one had a right to assert what the opinion of the people of the Transvaal was. We might say that it was hostile to the Chinese, but it was open to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was
    724
    open to our opponents in the country to assert —and I am bound to say they took advantage of their opportunity —that the Transvaal was strongly in favour of the retention of the Chinamen, that it would be ruined, or would even break out in rebellion if they were removed. Well, we were bound to await the verdict of the locality and of the community directly affected before this question could be settled. The mining interest in South Africa had it in their power by their influence with the Press, and by their influence on their employees before the strike took place, to organise great demonstrations and to create the impression, that we were coercing the Colony, interfering with the internal affairs of the Colony and that we were prepared to sacrifice their interests to our Party views in this country. That view could have been placed day after day, not only before the people of this country, but of all the self-governing Colonies throughout the British Empire. We might have run the risk of losing the support of Canada and Australia, and of those Colonies who are hostile to the principle of Chinese labour and are also hostile to the principle of interference by this country. And we should have run a great risk of uniting all parties in South Africa against what is sometimes called "Downing-street dictation." That is why we have been in this difficult position for the last eighteen months, and that is why we have had to cast out three anchors and pray for day light.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Five millions.
    MR. CHURCHILL: That is why I have had so often to present unsatisfactory cases to hon. Gentlemen with which I entirely agree in this House. But we had

    725
    faith that when there was an elected Parliament in the Transvaal that Parliament would declare against the principle of servile labour. What a vindication of the policy we have pursued ! What a vindication of the action of those Members of the House of Commons who in the last Parliament and in this have persisted relentlessly and tirelessly month after month in their hostility to the policy of Chinese labour, and who have shown such patience and extended such generous confidence to the Government! The repatriation of the Chinese will now be undertaken by those who have an absolute right to decide upon the question; it will also be undertaken by those possessing unrivalled knowledge of the facts. The present Transvaal Government is an authority upon the subject of the mining industry, and of the supplies of native labour which are available, not to be rivalled by any other body in the world. Although it is not a quarter from which I usually obtain much support or agreement, I observe, too, that the money market, which over wide areas is undoubtedly depressed at the present time, exhibits a buoyant tendency in that very South African area where we were told ruin and disaster would break out directly any reference was made to the repatriation of the Chinese. The right hon. Gentleman drew a very gloomy picture of the policy which he thought the Transvaal Government would pursue in regard to labour; how they were going to break up the native labour reserves and almost force the natives into the mines, in spite of a most hideous death-rate. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to attribute such a policy to the Transvaal Government. There is not the smallest ground for such an assertion or for attributing such a policy to them.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I did not attribute that policy to the Transvaal Government. I warned the House as to the opinion of the Prime Minister of the Transvaal.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention was to show a condition that would redress the admitted evil of Chinese labour. There is another statement which the right hon. Gentleman made in a very delicate and very courteous and correct form, but which has been repeated discourteously, indelicately, and incorrectly outside this House. It was that the Transvaal Government and General Botha had boon bargained with, or bribed, to get rid of the Chinese. So far as that charge affects His Majesty's Government, I treat it with the most superb indifference, but I should like to say that it is a highly improper charge to be brought against the Transvaal Government and against General Botha. General Botha has always been opposed to Chinese labour. In 1903, before the Labour Commission, he said in his evidence—
    "I am in favour of keeping this a white man's country. I am in favour, if we are forced to import, of importing whites."
    In February, 1904, in a letter addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, General Botha said—
    "The overwhelming majority of the Boer population of the Transvaal are unalterably opposed to the introduction of Chinese labour. It would be a fatal mistake to introduce Asiatic labour without full popular consent."
    In the election of 1906, General Botha said there were enough coloured races in South Africa as it was, and the Chinese should be repatriated at the expiration of their contracts. The Het Volk programme included the solution of the labour question by means of the gradual repatriation of the Chinese at the

    727
    termination of their indentures, and replacement by whites. I have dozens of quotations from speeches of the most responsible members of the Transvaal Government, not only since they have been members of the Government, but long before the Government was formed, and long before there was any question of a loan being raised, in which they condemned Chinese labour and declared their intention of getting rid of it as soon as they possibly could. In face of that I say it is monstrous to say that these men have been induced by some temporary financial convenience granted be the British Government to do what they consider is to the disadvantage of the country for the government of which they are responsible. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about not showing undue favour to the Boers. There is no other colony in the British Empire about whose Government he would have spoken in such unceremonious terms. Now, Sir, I have but a word to say upon the subject of the guaranteed loan. It is open to any responsible self governing colony in the British Empire to float any loan it chooses, whenever it likes; arid by an arrangement somewhat unthinkingly made, I have no hesitation in saying that any of these loans' would satisfy the requirements of 1907 and would have access to our list of trust securities. Consequently, if the Boer Government had decided, as I have every reason to think they would in any case have decided, to issue a loan for certain important purposes, which I will explain to the House when the loan is introduced, they would have been fully able to place that loan upon the market, and the derangement of our credit system which might arise from the flotation could not have been avoided by any resources at the disposal of the British Government, or by any
    728
    authority we possess in this House. [An HON MEMBER: "They could not have got the money."] The hon. Gentleman says they could not have got the money. Why, I do not suppose there is any territory in the world which, in proportion to its population, possesses such vast and gigantic riches as the Transvaal. With the most valuable diamond mines in the world, thousands of millions of gold, I have heard, actually in sight, and all the railways in the possession of the State, it is perfectly absurd to suppose that the trade of the Transvaal is not perfectly equal to raising this money without our assistance. [Cries of "Why didn't they?"] The Transvaal could have raised this money in any case. The difference is probably not more than 1 or 1£ per cent. as the result of the guarantee that has been promised. But I hope the House will realise this; I make no secret of it; the oiled of the British guarantee has been to make the Transvaal Government independent of the influence and control of those great mining corporations. We wanted to show them that there were other credit resources in the world besides those dependent upon the favour of the Witwatersrand connection. I have not had time to do justice to a great many of the arguments in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but let me say there are many things in his speech which I welcome; there are many notes which he struck which, I think, justify the representative of the Colonial Office in saying we are this year in a very much better position than we were in when I last presented Colonial Estimates to the House of Commons. I will only say that I trust the right hon. Gentleman will get out of the habit of talking about "our own people," when talking about His Majesty's liege subjects in South

    729
    Africa; all that belongs to a past period. The only course which a British Government should adopt is to try to make both races in South Africa feel that they can look across to an equal Sovereign, and find an equal encouragement, not in one Party in the State, but in both Parties, and in the nation, which is larger. In no other way can the sacrifices of life and treasure which have been so abundantly made be brought to their proper and secure conclusion. The right hon. Gentle-map has exercised great responsibility in the past in Colonial affairs; and no doubt he will again in the future exercise the responsibility of Government; criticism of administration is all very well, but I do trust the Conservative Party and its responsible leaders are not going to take up an attitude on this loan, on land settlement, and on the Constitution, which will lead them into permanent and declared antagonism, with the Dutch race throughout South Africa. I trust most earnestly they will not do so, because if they do so, their advent to power, whenever that may be—[An Hon. Member: Very soon.] —will be watched with great dismay throughout South Africa, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and others who will be in power will feel themselves gravely embarrassed when they have to deal, as they very likely will have to deal some day, with Dutch Ministers and Dutch Governments holding office under the Crown.
    And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.,
    Committee report Progress; to sit; again upon Monday next.
    Motion made, and question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what final decision had been come to with regard to the situation developed at Question time in relation to the Resolution to be moved on Monday by the Prime Minister.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.)said that in the circumstances the Government had no alternative but to propose that the House should meet on Saturday.
    MAJOR SEELYcalled attention to the difficult situation in which the House found itself. The differences were surely capable of adjustment. The noble Lord, he agreed, was acting with the approval of many Liberal Members. The sole object was to prevent a grave abuse of the forms of the House which had almost become a great public scandal. He had seen a document which had been submitted to officials of the House which would meet the views of both sides, and which private Members might accept. If they abolished all blocking Motions the Government of the day might find itself powerless to stop discussion in a grave crisis such as had lately occurred in India; and, secondly, it was possible that any private Member might take away from the time of the House by moving the adjournment. The proposal was that on the Motion of a Minister of the Crown it might be decided without Amendment or debate that a Motion for adjournment should not be accepted. That would meet the case in which discussion would be contrary to public policy. The second difficulty would be solved by an automatic suspension of the eleven o'clock rule whenever the adjournment of the House was moved. Thus such Motions could not be employed to embarrass the Government by the consumption of time. It would

    731
    be ridiculous if the House were to put itself to the inconvenience of a Saturday sitting because it could not free itself from the fetters which ninety-nine men out of 100 wished to sweep away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might bring in a Standing Order which, embodying something like the proposals he had suggested, would save the House from a ridiculous position.
    LORD R. CECIL,speaking for himself, thought that some such solution as had been outlined would meet the grievance complained of. He had no desire that a Motion for adjournment under Standing Order 10 should be allowed when a Minister backed by a majority decided it would be against the public interest. He could see no reason why a rule for automatic suspension should not be assented to. He had no desire to put the House to the inconvenience of a Saturday sitting, and if the House should be put to that inconvenience, it would be entirely to save the amour propre of the Patronage Secretary. He had no desire to press the matter in a hasty manner, his only desire was for a settlement of the question, and he could not accuse himself of having pressed the matter unduly, having waited for months.
    MR. ASQUITHwas sorry the noble Lord had used one expression, for there was no question of saving the amour propre of his hon. friend. He agreed to every thing that had been said by the Government when the matter was discussed some months ago, and he felt that if a little more time were given an agreement might be arrived at. With some communications passing from either side, a conclusion generally acceptable could be arrived at to get rid of what was little short of a public scandal, to get rid of Motions for adjournment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not believe that any decision could be arrived at once. There were more difficulties in the I way than had been supposed. It was a far I more difficult problem than the right hon. Gentleman supposed. He had given the question a great deal of anxious thought when he was Leader of the House. There were occasions on which the existing rule had been grossly abused in this as well as in the last Parliament. But let not the House imagine that it could deal with a matter of this kind without very serious consideration. If the Government merely contented themselves with saying that further consideration was required, he was inclined to agree, but they had allowed over two months to elapse since the Easter holidays. He did not follow the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman had given; but his private conviction was, though he did not wish to hurt anyone's feelings, that the Government had forgotten all about the subject. He hoped that the Government would not forget it any more.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYassured the House that no communication had reached the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division with his authority. A certain document had been in his pocket all day, but it had never left it. How the hon. Member had seen it passed his comprehension.
    Major SEELYsaid that naturally he had some knowledge of the document, as he was partly the inventor of it.
    Adjourned at seventeen minutes after Eleven o'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Killery's Divorce Bill [H.L.]—Order of the Day for the Second Reading read; Counsel called in; witnesses examined; Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; the same was agreed to. Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.—Read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 80.)
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]—Read 2a (according to order).
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Grays and Tilbury Gas Bill.—Read 3a, and passed.
York (Micklegate) Strays Bill [H.L.]; Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [H.L.]. —Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Taff Vale Railway Bill; Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill.—Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
London County Council (Money) Bill. —Committed.
Brockenhurst Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Boston Spa Gas Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Murphy Grimshaws Divorce (Validation) Bill [H.L.].—Minutes of evidence and proceedings before this House on the Second Reading, together with the documents deposited in the case, returned from the Commons.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill. —Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the; opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 30th of May last and the 4th instant discharged, and Bill committed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 523. Ashanti (Report for 1906). Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all loans raised in India, chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended the 31st March, 1907, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.

  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended the 31st March, 1907, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the, Civil List Act, 1901.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION (BUILDING REGULATIONS, ELEMENTARY).
  Building regulations, being principles to be observed in planning and fitting up new buildings for public elementary schools; together with rules as to construction and certain requirements as to plans. Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next.—(The Earl of Portsmouth). (No. 78).
LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
Brought from the Commons and read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 79).

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to order).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I have six pages of Amendments to propose in this Bill, and I shall say a very few words in regard to them. The Bill is one which has been introduced in pursuance of recommendations of the Statute Law Revision Committee. The revised edition already comes down to the year 1896, and the purpose of this Bill is to bring it down to the year 1900, and so close the century. Pursuant to the usual practice, the Bill has been sent to the various Departments concerned, and the Amendments which I have to propose are the suggestions of the Departments. They are all entirely and solely for the purpose of accurately representing what the law is in view of the repeals and qualifications in more recent legislation. The matter is extremely technical, but there is not the least ground for supposing that there is any change at all made in the law. All that is intended is to have a faithful record of what the Statute Law is. Accordingly I propose, following the course adopted by my predecessor, to move the whole of these Amendments en bloc.
Moved, "That the Amendments be added to the Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.