Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Monday, 28th May 1894.

Private Business

Thames Conservancy Bill (By Order) Committee

said, he desired to move,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Thames Conservancy Bill that they have power to insert in the Bill, if they think fit, provisions for authorising the Conservancy to dredge the portions of the River Thames and the estuary thereof below Yantlet Creek, in the County of Kent."

In proposing it he wished to point out that the Instruction dealt with a question of considerable importance, inasmuch as the Bill conferred a new constitution and new powers which would be effectually to give to the Thames Conservators a mandate which could not be altered or amended for a long time to come. It was therefore only natural that the shipowners, who were the largest contributors to the revenue of the Thames Conservancy, should desire to be assured that the provisions now intended to be made for the maintenance and improvement of the Port of London would be adequate not merely for the present but for some years to come, especially in view of the rapid increase in the size of vessels. In this respect the great desideratum was a proper depth of water for vessels of the largest size. Yet this most vital matter was totally ignored in the Bill. It might, perhaps, be argued that the powers of the Thames Conservancy Board would remain exactly as they were 30 or 40 years ago. But he begged leave to point out that a great change bad come over the Port of London since those powers were granted. He would mention two facts only to show this. Within the last 20 years the tonnage of foreign-going shipping frequenting the Port had increased 100 percent.—namely, from 7,000,000 to 14,000,000 of tons. In the character and size of ships the change was even more marked. Within the past 10 years the number of vessels of over 3,000 tons burden bad increased by 200 per cent. Under these circumstances, it was obvious that the duty was imposed on the Thames Conservancy of keeping pace with the times, and to see that proper facilities were given to the shipping by work in the direction indicated in his Instruction. Large vessels experienced great inconvenience and no little risk on account of the shoal condition of the Thames, especially in the vincinity of the Nore, a vicinity which was popularly considered to be part of the Nore, although some hundred years ago it was considered to be outside the river boundaries. It would perhaps surprise hon. Members if he informed them that for 10 miles below the docks it was impossible to find a safe anchorage for the largest ships frequenting the river, on account of the shallowness of the channel, and these vessels were exposed to the greatest possible risk, especially during the winter months when fogs were prevalent. If a large vessel happened from any cause, accidental or otherwise, not to hit off the right moment for docking, she was obliged to retrace her course to Gravesend, and there wait for the next tide. His Instruction dealt specifically with the shoaled condition of the mouth of the Thames. The charts of 1892–3 showed that in some places there were only some 19 feet of water at that part of the river, while the charts of 20 years ago indicated, at the same spots, a greater depth, thus showing absolutely that a gradual silting up bad been going on. This was a matter for the gravest consideration of the Committee. The evidence tendered by the shipping interest had been rejected simply because the entrance to the River Thames near the Nore was not within the geographical area dealt with in the provisions of the Bill before the Committee. It was therefore absolutely necessary to come that day to the House to ask for this Instruction. It was their contention that the scope of the Bill ought to be widened, and the authorities responsible for the maintenance of the Port ought to have their jurisdiction extended to the mouth of the river, which was the key of the whole situation. It was essential that this should be done in the interests of the future welfare of the Port. He was sorry to think that those interested in the Thames Conservancy were vigorously opposing the Instruction. If they opposed it on the plea of poverty, he would point out that the shipping interest were not to blame for that, seeing that for many years they had contributed between £40,000 and £50,000 a year for the improvement of the Port of London, though nothing like this amount had been expended for that purpose. Last year the accounts of the Thames Conservancy Board showed that only £10,000 or £11,000 was spent in dredging the channel or the approaches to the river, and the Board had, in fact, been obtaining from the shipping industry of the Port large sums of money which had not been expended for the purpose. He hoped it was not the case that there was some official resistance to this Motion, because if it were he could only suggest that it partook very much of the nature-of the resistance of the Egyptian Government to reduction of the light dues. That Government seemed to have retained dues which they were improperly obtaining from British shipping. In the same way the Thames Conservancy had been improperly obtaining money for the improvement of the Port of London, while they had failed to expend it on the improvement of the Port. If shipowners were to be called on for further taxation, it should be accompanied by larger representation. At the present time, while the pecuniary contribution of the shipping interest to the Thames Conservancy amounted to something like 50 or 60 per cent. of the total income, their share of representation was only one in 14, or about 7 per cent. The important point which the Motion for the present Instruction opened up was, whether a new lease of power was to be given to the Thames Conservancy under a Bill which ignored the duty of improving the Port of London? If the evidence which the shipping industry were seeking to tender did not prove their case, then the Thames Conservancy would have the strongest reason for ignoring the matter as they had done. If, on the other hand, they proved their case, as he believed they would up to the hilt, the duty of the Board would be clear. He could not imagine that such a proposal could be opposed on any ground of public policy. There was absolutely no other course open to him except that which he was now pursuing, as it was impossible to discuss the Bill upon the Second Reading. If it were suggested that this great matter ought to be dealt with by means of a separate Bill and that it ought to be preceded by a Select Committee of Inquiry, his reply was that if this course were adopted the result would be to shelve a question of the most vital importance to the interests of the Port of London. He had not spoken of the Thames Conservancy in any unfriendly spirit, but he thought that, in view of the efforts that were being made by the authorities even of many of the minor ports in the United Kingdom to meet the requirements of the time and of the efforts that were being made by rivals on the Continent, especially at Antwerp, which was being made a grander and better Port than London, the Thames Conservancy had but little to boast of in connection with their present position and had yet much to accomplish in order to make the Port of London worthy of the great Metropolis to which it belonged. He begged to move the Instruction of which he had given notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Thames Conservancy Bill that they have power to insert in the Bill, if they think fit, provisions for authorising the Conservancy to dredge portions of the River Thames and the estuary thereof below Yantlet Creek, in the County of Kent."—(Sir T. Sutherland.)

said, he had been unable to gather from the speech just delivered a single reason why the proposed Instruction should be adopted, inasmuch as the Bill had no connection whatever with the dredging of the river below a certain point. The Bill had already been before the Committee a great number of days. It was a Bill containing over 300 clauses, and it was too late to introduce into it a new duty which it would be utterly beyond the power of the Thames Conservancy Board to perform. He opposed the Instruction on behalf of the Thames Conservancy on two grounds—first, because it was an attempt to evade the Standing Orders of the House; and, secondly, on its merits. The Bill had been brought in by order of the House itself under a clause in the London County Council's Bill of last year, in which notice was distinctly given that the Conservators were to bring in a Bill this year and get it passed into law. It was provided that in case the Conservators did not do this the London County Council were to have a right to bring in a Bill next year. The question referred to in the proposed Instruction was a very large and grave one, and one that would require the most careful examination and consideration. A very large quantity of expert evidence would also have to be taken with regard to it. It was a question whether the natural bed of the river could be altered. As a very long investigation would be required, the adoption of the Instruction would have the effect of preventing the Bill passing into law this year, and the result would be that the whole of the expense and trouble which had been incurred would be thrown away. This was not the only case in which a claim of this kind had been made. The Preston authorities some time ago wanted to have the Ribble dredged in the same way as it was proposed to dredge the mouth of the Thames now. The question was brought before the Board of Trade, who went into the subject and appointed three Commissioners, who sat, he believed, no fewer than 21 days, and presented a Report of 27 pages to the Board of Trade. On that Report, which was favourable to the proposal, the Board of Trade ordered that the Corporation of Preston should bring in a separate Bill. The Bill was brought in, was thoroughly threshed out, and became an Act of Parliament in 1892. The Thames Conservancy said that this question ought to be treated in the same way. Of course, the Con- servators did not want to do anything that would prevent the free passage of vessels into the Port of London, but the object which the hon. Member (Sir T. Sutherland) wished to attain ought to be pursued under proper conditions, which were not secured by this Bill. There were 93 Petitions against this Bill, and not one of them alleged that the Thames was silting up. He himself had examined the map, and he could only find one place in which the depth of the water was as little as 19 feet, and that was quite close to the shore. The hon. Member had spoken about the money of the Thames Conservators being spent upon the upper part of the river. He should like to know what the State of the lower part of the river would be if nothing was spent on the upper part? The question of expense was also an important one. He was told by engineers that it was a very moot point whether the river could be dredged in the way suggested, because it was said that, owing to the tides, if it were dredged to-day it would silt up to-morrow. Supposing, however, that the dredging could be carried out, the dredging machinery would cost something like £80,000, and in all probability a sum of £40,000 a year would have to be spent whilst the dredging went on. It would be a very nice thing for the shipowners if they had the channel dredged for them at the public expense. They did not find there was any proposal on their part to pay any of the expenses. He had no hesitation in saying that this Instruction was an attempt to wreck the Bill, and if it were adopted the Bill would not pass, and their whole work would be thrown away. If a now Bill were brought in next Session under proper conditions the Thames Conservancy would have no objection to support it, and then the proper machinery and proper funds could be arranged to carry the matter through. The shipowners who had their representatives on the Thames Conservancy Board when the Bill was before the Board never brought up the question at all, and when they came before the Committee they tried to introduce into the Bill clauses which they had not the power to then introduce, which ought to have been properly advertised in October and November last, so that the public might see what they were doing. This matter was introduced when the Committee had nearly finished the Bill, and it was an attempt, apparently at the eleventh hour, to wreck the Bill. The Thames Conservancy Board contended that the Bill should be passed in its present state by the Committee, and a proper inquiry should be made into this question next year. The Thames Conservancy would introduce a fresh supplemental Bill if necessary, but it ought to be brought in with the proper machinery, and then there would be no objection to doing anything that was reasonable. He hoped the House would not pass the Instruction, because, however desirable it might be in itself, it was utterly at variance with the present Bill of the Thames Conservancy, was outside its powers, and contrary to the rule of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

said, this matter was of extreme importance to the Port of London and Members representing London on that side of the House, and he believed some on the other side would join in heartily supporting the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Greenock. The speech made by the hon. Member who had last spoken had really been a speech against the Third Reading of the Bill. They had shown the insufficiency of this Bill to meet the great needs of the Port of London. When the Bill was introduced and read a second time, it was his duty, speaking on behalf of the County Council of London, to say they did not oppose the Bill at that stage, because it was brought in statutably, and because they should be glad to see whether it could not be improved in Committee in the direction needed; but he indicated that it would be their duty to oppose the Bill at a later stage if it failed, as completely as they conceived it did, to meet the great purpose it was intended to meet. The Thames Conservancy had, under this Bill, taken large and extended powers over the tributaries of the Thames, and over the whole of the Thames Valley, far above Oxford and in various directions—powers extended laterally, in order to prevent the river from pollution, which they heartily approved of the Conservancy Board obtaining. These powers had been considered before the Committee, which was willing to grant them to the Thames Conservancy. But there were interests even more important to London than the pollution of the Thames, for they looked to obtain their water from other sources. The interests of the Port of London were as vital to London, and the population of London was as interested in the success of the Port of London as anything else connected with the river. The government of London had been in a state of chaos for 50 years, one consequence of which had been that the Conservancy Board extended for only 40 miles below London Bridge, the remaining 10 miles not being under the Thames Conservancy. That portion of the river, there fore, remained undredged, and it was to that portion the present Instruction referred. What they said was that if the Thames Conservancy Board had acted properly by the whole Port of London it would have introduced into their Bill measures for extending the Conservancy over the last 10 miles of the river. The hon. Baronet said that this Bill should pass through as it stood, or with such Amendments as the Committee might introduce, and that this should not be introduced in the present measure. He asked the House to remember the circumstances under which this measure was introduced last year. The County Council proposed to bring in a Bill to deal with the Thames Conservancy, and a compromise was taken on the basis that a complete and comprehensive measure ought to be brought in dealing with the whole subject in which the question of representation should also be dealt with, and the question of representation was ruled at that period as one not to be dealt with fully at the time, and the Conservancy Board was ordered to bring in a Bill on the present occasion dealing with the whole subject. They had brought in a Bill now; but by what the Member for Greenock had said that Bill was by no means comprehensive, or one which dealt with the whole subject, and to pass this fraction of a Bill, and to leave it till next year for the Conservancy Board to bring in another Bill dealing with the most important part of the whole question, was to contravene the Order of the Act of Parliament passed last Session, and to deal with it in a wholly insufficient and unsatisfactory manner. The ground on which this Bill was brought in was undoubtedly that there should be a more representative Board, and if they were going to construct the Board on the basis of the Bill as it at present stood, without having any reference to such great and widespread interests involved in such an Instruction as this, they should construct a Board inadequate for the proper government and management of the River Thames. The fact was, that the Conservancy, in introducing this Bill, had altogether fallen short of the great duty before them. They had altogether failed to see the huge interests involved, and the great opportunity that it offered for dealing satisfactorily with the Conservancy of the River Thames—not only in omitting such portions of the duty of the Conservancy as this referred to in the Instruction, and upon which the safety and prosperity of the Port of London really greatly depended—but also in the inadequate changes that had been introduced in the formation of the Board itself, which ought to be placed on a thoroughly representative footing, which ought to represent the population of the banks of the Thames and in the Thames Valley proportionately, and which ought to deal with the upper and the lower branches of the river—which were so distinctly different in their requirements by separate Statutable Committees of the Board suitable for dealing with the circumstances of each. What had the inhabitants of the upper reaches of the river to do really with the prosperity of the Port of London in any direct manner? There ought to be a Statutable Committee to deal with the upper reaches of the river, and another to deal with all that concerned that part of the river which constituted the Port of London, and these two Committees, of one thoroughly representative Board, would work in a proper manner for the different interests concerned on the Thames. They wanted to, have some comprehensive scheme like that introduced, and they wanted to have a proper system of finance introduced into the Bill. The present Conservancy had not got enough money to carry out the duties they were imposing upon themselves even in the present Bill, and their funds were wholly insufficient to enable them to discharge the new duties he had indicated. Where were the funds to come from? The Board could never get adequate funds until it became a body representative of the population along the whole Thames Valley, which might be empowered if necessary to put a rate on property affected. The Bill fell short in these points, and if the insertion of this Instruction led to awakening the Conservancy, and those who represented them, before the Committee, to the necessity of carrying out these great points, then they should have done well by carrying the Instruction. If it should postpone the Bill—and he could not for a single moment see why it should do so—all he could say was that it was better that the Bill should be postponed than that it should be carried through this House under the circumstances indicated so ably by the hon. Member for Greenock. He denied that there was any necessity for putting off this Bill on account of carrying the Instruction, and he appealed to the House to insist on securing an adequate measure, so that they should obtain now and finally a proper Conservancy Board representative of the population interested, with proper financial support and proper powers to make the Port of London the Port it ought to be in this Kingdom.

confessed that, after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch, he was led somewhat to the conclusion that the hon. Member would not be very sorry if the Bill did not succeed. He should have been more impressed if such an impassioned—not to say violent—speech had been made by one not so strictly connected with the County Council, and when he remembered that this Bill was introduced by virtue of a pledge given to the County Council, and upon a compromise by which it must be got through this year, he ventured to think it would not be fair to the promoters of the Bill if the agitation was to take place now which commenced at the earlier stage of the Bill. He contrasted the speech of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch with the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock, who certainly did not seem to desire to put the Instruction except on its true ground—namely, that of the improvement of the Port and the interests of the shipowners. What did the hon. Member for Shoreditch say? He desired to deal with the whole scheme of both the constitution and policy of the Conservancy Board. The hon. Member said there ought to be two Committees—one for the upper and one for the lower Thames, a new scheme of finance, and, finally, that there ought to be other and better representation of the shipowners on the Conservancy Board. But if he was correctly informed this important question of representation was before the Committee at the present time. What he wanted to know was what had the questions of representation, finance, and two Committees to do with the Instruction of the hon. Member for Greenock? It was perfectly plain that the speech they had just listened to was intended to lead the House to the belief that there were grounds, quite apart from this Instruction, why the Bill ought not to be passed, and if that line of argument were to be taken it seemed to him it would not be quite keeping good faith with the promoters of the Bill. He desired to say a word or two upon the merits of the Instruction, and he hoped the Government would be good enough to state what course they proposed to adopt. He did not think he should be accused of want of sympathy with the shipowners, and the hon. Member for Greenock would be the first to admit that from the point of view of improving the Port or enabling large ships to enter it, he (Sir R. Webster) would do all he could to assist. But he could assure the House that the question of dredging the Estuary of the Thames was not a subject to be undertaken with a light heart, and he did not hesitate to say from some experience in connection with these matters in other parts, that a scheme for dredging the Thames for seven miles below Yantlet Creek was not one which should be undertaken until after the fullest scientific investigation and that proper consideration which this House required when Private Bills of this class were promoted. He was not putting this on grounds of technicality. The Standing Orders contemplated that the notices issued in November should contain an outline of schemes of this character, and that plans should be given indicating the area in which it was proposed to do the work. He was not arguing the case on technical grounds, but on the ground that such a proposal ought only to be undertaken by any Public Body after the fullest investigation and the most careful inquiry that could be given to it. He would remind the House that views had been taken of the Estuary of the Thames before, which, on investigation, had turned out to be entirely fallacious. What was the present position of the Bill? They were in the month of May, and he was told that this Bill had been 16 days before the Committee already, and of 93 Petitions not one single one had raised this point, and he did not think it was a fair thing to the Conservators to raise this question now, when there were these various and vast number of interests involved, and it did not occur to anyone to bring forward this as a matter of substance. What would happen if this Instruction were adopted? He believed the Member for Greenock did not desire unduly to fetter the action of the Conservators; but if the Instruction were adopted, there must be scientific evidence and inquiries, and on the most. moderate estimate; even if proceeded with forthwith, there would be an inquiry of 10 or 12 extra days. Counsel would have to be heard in support of the case for the Instruction, and if a primâ facie case was made for it there would not only have to be an adjournment, but after consideration as to who ought to be allowed to appear on the matter, because it must not be supposed there were no interests involved in such a question as dredging the lower part of the river. But in any view the position would be this: the Bill would probably be ruined, and certainly ruined for this Session if this Instruction were passed. He would remind the House that the scheme and object of the present Bill was the consolidation of the powers of the Thames Conservancy Board and the better regulation of the powers which now existed, and it did seem to him a strong measure at the last moment to introduce an Instruction which would extend the jurisdiction over a geographical area they had not got. If this were absolutely a case of a clean sheet, and this was a Bill introduced without any fettering conditions—if there was not a suggestion of a suspicion that the County Council would not be sorry if this Bill did not pass, then there might be strong grounds for contending that the House ought not at this stage to agree to such Instruction. But he submitted to the House with all deference that in the matter of such a Bill, having such a purpose, and having regard to the present conditions, it would be unjust to interfere with the arrangement made, for if this extremely lengthened inquiry were to be entered upon it was certain there must be long and anxious criticism of the evidence, and possibly the House or the Committee upstairs would not be completely informed of the matter because of the want of preparation. He hoped the Instruction would not be passed.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had put forward the difficulties which might result if this Instruction were carried, but he should, nevertheless, vote for the Instruction, because he thought it would be well to take whatever evidence the shipping interests of London had to offer before the Committee, in order that it might be ascertained what steps should be taken with a view to effecting any improvements to the Port of London. He cordially agreed with the hon. Member for Shoreditch as to the advisability of dividing the work of the Thames Conservancy Board. He would ask hon. Members who represented the counties through which the Thames flowed in the upper part whether it would not be as well for them as for the Port of London to divide the river into two portions, and put each of these portions under the care of a separate authority? It was quite clear that certain of these counties had very little concern indeed with the Port of London, and the great difficulty of representation would be got over if two authorities were created which should govern the river from its source to its mouth. If the Port of London were put under the care of one authority there would be very little difficulty in giving the shipowners and population of London a proper proportion of representation, but when they had to take into consideration all the counties that were concerned in the upper part of the river the difficulty of giving representation to the shipping interests of London became very great. The two parts of the river were quite different. The upper part might be looked upon as a source of drinking water for the people of London, whereas the lower part of it was not at all like the other part, and ought to be in the hands of those who were interested in it and knew all about it. He therefore supported the Instruction.

opposed the Instruction in the first place because he regarded it as not necessary, and in the second place because it would adversely affect the interests of the sailors and fishermen who plied their trade in the Estuary of the Thames and the North Sea. The Instruction was promoted by that august body the London County Council, and it appeared they were anxious that the Thames Conservancy should be compelled to dredge the area indicated. This particular area was the part of the Estuary of the Thames which supplied the East End of London with cheap fish. The fishermen on that part of the river sent up to Billingsgate various kinds of fish, and if the area of supply from this part of the river was restricted the East End of London would suffer very considerably, and his constituents, the sailors who plied their trade in the Estuary of the Thames and in the North Sea, would have the bread taken out of their mouths. These sailors were some of the best seamen in the country. This area was also practically cultivated as if it was almost a market garden. This was not the first time by any means that he and his constituents had been tried in this way. The Estuary of the Thames for the last five years had been by no means a bed of roses to himself or constituents. About four years ago it occurred to the intelligence of the Board of Admiralty that they would dredge a channel from Sheerness to Chatham in order to allow the passage of big ships up and down the Medway, and it occurred to them as a happy thought to lump all the mud from the dredging on to the fishing grounds of the Essex fishermen, precisely as the Thames Conservancy Board would do if the Instruction of the hon. Baronet opposite was accepted by the House. Again, a short time ago the London County Council commenced to dump sewage matter on to the fishing grounds precisely as the Admiralty used to do with the dredgings, their fishing grounds comprising the very area now under discussion. They did not want that kind of thing to happen again. They had induced the County Council to abate the nuisance, and they did not desire that it should commence again with the Thames Conservancy. If this Instruction were passed, it would be putting his constituents out of the frying-pan into the fire. He knew this district thoroughly, and he could assure the hon. Member for Greenock that he never heard of a single instance of a ship being delayed in her passage up and down the river, or any complaint of the river being too shallow. If the House did pass the Instruction, he hoped that, at any rate, his constituents would be given the opportunity of placing their evidence before the Committee upstairs as to the damage likely to be done to them. He opposed the Instruction, which he asked the House not to pass.

said that, as he deemed the question to be of general and not merely local interest, although he was not a Metropolitan Member, he proposed to say a few words in support of the Instruction. He would not enter into technicalities—either engineering or Parliamentary—still less would he discuss the composition or efficiency of the Thames Conservancy Board. He would not weary the House by any statement as to the national importance of the shipping interest, as that was well known, but it was undoubtedly patent to everyone that if the shipping was to find its way to the Port of London it was necessary that accommodation should be provided, as was done in the case of the Tees and other large rivers. This was the more needful, as the size of vessels was constantly increasing. If the Instruction were to direct the Thames Conservancy to dredge this channel he could understand the objections that had been urged against it, but the fact was that it was an Instruction to the Committee to insert in the Bill, if they thought fit to do so, a certain provision authorising the Thames Conservancy to dredge certain portions of the River Thames. There was no Instruction that they should do so, and he never before heard of a Public Body refusing to have powers which they were not compelled to exercise, and he could not see why they should do so in this instance. In the interests of the public, of shipping, and in the best interests of the Port of London, he intended to support the Instruction.

said, he did not wish to delay the House, and should not have intervened if it had not been to make clear the attitude which the London County Council had taken up in this matter. In the first place, let him give the most direct denial to the insinuations that this Instruction came from the London County Council; it arose, he believed, from the fact that the evidence on this point was rejected by the Committee sitting upon the Bill, and accordingly the shipowners, without any consultation with the London County Council, prepared this Instruction. Although the London County Council had nothing to do with the origin of this, they gave their heartiest support to it for these reasons— reasons which he thought they had no cause to be ashamed of. Their one aim, both in the Bill brought in last year and in the present proceeding, was that the whole of the Thames should be in the hands of a strong Representative Body, to which could be safely entrusted those powers of finance which alone could make the Conservancy effective, and they felt with regard to this Bill, that although there might be a most valuable inquiry, no solution of the problem could by any possibility be come to, because it was impossible under the present Bill to supply the Thames Conservancy with the funds absolutely necessary to carry out its duties properly. The consequence was, that they looked on this Bill as one that might regulate the jurisdiction and the powers of the new body and which might regulate its constitution, but which could not complete the question of settling what the Thames Conservancy was to be, for it could not settle the question of finance. Accordingly, they were most anxious that in all questions of jurisdiction the inquiry should be full, so that everything that related to the Thames should be put in the hands of this body. They were also anxious that the constitution of this body should be rightly framed, that it should be representative, that it should be of such standing that they might get the best men upon it, and that the public might not shrink from trusting it even with powers of rating. But they knew that completion could not take place this year. What, then, was their attitude towards this Instruction? They felt that the extra jurisdiction the shipowners desired, and which was vital to the interests of London, should be in the hands of the same powerful, and, as they hoped, rich body which would manage all other Thames questions and carry out effectively their aims. Though they admitted that this Bill could not be final, they desired that it should add this important function to the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy in anticipation of the time when its constitution, jurisdiction, and resources should be finally settled. If that were done, they might be able to persuade the Legislature to endow it with proper funds. For all these reasons, he believed the County Council unanimously supported this Instruction, which he begged the House to accede to.

wished to disabuse his hon. and learned Colleague opposite of the views under which he laboured, that the London County Council unanimously supported this Instruction. He opposed it solely and exclusively because he had the honour to be a member of the London County Council, and he desired to purge the body of which it was his privilege to be a member from a charge of breach of faith in connection with the Thames Conservancy Board. This Bill, whatever its merits or demerits, was introduced into this House in fulfilment of a compact and understanding which was brought about very much through the influence of his right hon. Friend who formerly occupied the position of the President of the Local Government Board, and he regretted that many members of the Loudon County Council gave support to an Instruction that would altogether overthrow a Bill that had been brought in. In his opinion, it was the reverse of straightforward.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said there had been a breach of faith with regard to this Bill. He (Mr. Rowlands) had the honour of a seat on the Committee last year, and he said most deliberately that the solution of the difficulty which arose with regard to the recommendations of the majority of that Committee was this: that the Thames Conservancy should bring in a Bill that would grapple with the whole question of the management of the Thames with regard to the upper reaches right down to the Port of London.

said, the arrangement was to bring in a Bill to consolidate the powers of the Conservancy, and not to increase them.

I said to the mouth of the river.

That is what I object to.

said, he heard the whole of the evidence, and the one question put before them as to why nothing of a practical nature could be done was that there were no real funds at the disposal of the Thames Conservancy to manage the river. He believed in this Bill they did put an extra charge of some £10,000 a year upon the Water Companies. One thing was certain: that before there could be a thorough management of the great river on which they depended so much, there must be finances at the disposal of the Conservancy for the purposes of administration. The reason he was going to vote for the Instruction was because it was thoroughly permissive. What the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir T. Sutherland) desired was that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to insert, if they thought fit, provisions authorising the Conservancy to dredge certain portions of the river. He did not think the House ought to refuse the demand made by the hon. Member, which was made in the shipping interest, in regard to which the hon. Member was acknowledged as an authority. The hon. Member who represented one of the divisions of Essex had told them what was the interest of the fishermen in his constituency, but there was a large portion of the river on the Essex coast that could not be dredged under any circumstances.

said, his objection was that they put the dredgings upon their fishing beds.

said, that could not be done within a mile and a quarter of the Southend Pier, which had to be run out for a mile and a half to enable steamers to land passengers. Considering the evidence laid before the Committee upstairs, he thought the House would be stultifying itself if it did not give the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir T. Sutherland) this permissive Instruction he asked for.

hoped this question would be viewed from a wider standpoint than the interests in cockles and mussels advocated by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Major Rasch). If the hon. Member for Greenock and the County Council joined in urging this proposal, it seemed to him that everyone identified with the commerce of the City was bound to support it, and to endeavour to secure for the Conservancy adequate powers to deal both with the upper and the lower reaches, each of which was dependent on the other. If he understood the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir F. Dixon-Hartland) aright, he spoke of the improvement of the upper river.

I never did anything of the kind.

said, in that case he had mistaken the somewhat ambiguous remarks the hon. Member made on the subject. The feeling in London, and especially in shipping circles, with regard to the condition of the river was that, if the character and prosperity of the Port were to be maintained, something must be done, and done quickly. The constantly-increasing tendency to build large ships rendered this absolutely necessary. This question must be viewed in the light of the action of competitive ports, both in this country and abroad. The authorities at the Humber, at Antwerp, and at Hamburg were, by improving the facilities of access, endeavouring to increase the interest of these ports at the expense of the Port of London. If the House neglected the duty of making the Thames as accessible as possible under all conditions they would do a great injury to the chief Port of this country.

said that, as a Surrey Member, he wished to say one word, and it was this: that if this Instruction were passed to-day it would simply be fatal to the Bill for this Session, and that, under the circumstances, would render the ultimate passing of the Bill impossible; and he believed that some who advocated this Instruction were perfectly well aware of that. He wished to say a word on the commercial interests of this question. The question might be, as described by his hon. Friends the Members for Greenock, Bristol, and Islington, one of great importance to the shipping and commercial interests, but, if so, let them be provided for by a separate Bill, and let the inquiry be now set on foot. If his hon. Friend, who had just spoken, was so thoroughly convinced of that he would ask whether he did not mention it before?

; I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, but this matter has been brought before shipping and commercial circles for many years past, and has been thoroughly advocated.

asked why the hon. Member had not mentioned it in the House of Commons upon the various stages of this Bill? The hon. Gentleman said the duty must be done by the Port of London; then let the duty be now undertaken, let the inquiry be set on foot and a separate Bill introduced, but do not tack on to a Bill an Instruction that would destroy that Bill. Therefore, in the vital interests of Surrey, he entreated the Government not to favour this proposal, and he would ask the House, in the interest of those who sent him there, to allow a Bill that had been read a second time and referred to a Committee, whose investigations were all but completed, to pass a Third Reading.

I do not know that this is a matter in which the Government are bound, as a Government, to take any part. All I shall say is that, having listened to this Debate, I confess I think the speech just made by the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit) is one that convinces me that this Instruction is one that ought to be adopted. It is obviously a very large question, and not one that can be decided, as the last speaker seems to think, with a view to the interests of his constituents in that picturesque part of the Thames Valley which he represents. It must be regarded from the great interests which the Thames represents as the Port of the commerce of the City of London. I understand the proposal to be a request that the shipping interest shall be allowed to place their views before the Committee. As to the interests in this matter, I cannot conceive how a demand of that kind can be resisted. I do not enter into the question of the antagonistic views that may arise between the majority and the minority on the County Council of Loudon; but the fact that the County Council of London, the representatives of the Metropolis and the great commercial interests, and the still larger interests of the commerce of the Empire, support this Instruction is enough to personally induce me to vote in favour of the Instruction.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 112.—(Division List, No. 60.)

Questions

Army Schoolmasters' Pensions

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as the time spent in education at the Staff College at Kneller Hall and at Hythe counts towards pension, the same privilege can be extended to Army schoolmasters going through their course of training at the Royal Military Asylum in those cases in which they were soldiers before entering upon the course?

The training schools at the Royal Military Asylum have been abolished since 1888. Soldiers in training for the appointment of schoolmaster now pass one year in Army schools, and this year's service is counted towards pension.

Workmen's Tickets

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House to what extent Railway Companies issue cheap workmen's tickets on the terms that if they are killed or injured on the line the Company is not to be responsible or liable; and, if not, whether the Home Office will procure the information in the form proposed by the Return asked for, or in some similar form?

The Board of Trade have not the information to enable them to answer my hon. and learned Friend's question, and they feel that it is unreasonable that they should press the Railway Companies for a Return. The tickets would appear to be in the nature of contracts between the Companies and passengers in return for facilities specially conceded, and they are quite distinct from any matter in regard to which the Board of Trade have administrative functions in connection with Railway Companies. I am, of course, unable to answer for the Home Office.

Am I to understand that the Board of Trade declines or is unable to procure the necessary information?

They think it would not be reasonable to press the Railway Companies to make such a Return.

Under these circumstances, I shall take an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the matter.

Communication With The West Coast Of Ross-Shire

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is only weekly communication by steamer with Ullapool, Aultbea, Poolewe, and other populous districts on the west coast of the mainland of Ross-shire; and that transit by road, a distance of upwards of 30 miles to the nearest railway station, is so costly as to seriously affect the fishing industry; whether more frequent steamer communication will be provided; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing, as in the West of Ireland, light railways or road trams in these districts?

The whole population of Western Ross-shire, extending over a tract of 624,000 acres, is 11,400 A yearly subsidy of £7,000 is granted for steamer service in the Western Highlands and Islands, and vessels touch once a week at Ullapool and thrice a week at Gairloch. Both places have a daily mail service by railway and coach. The Scottish Office is not prepared to recommend an increase of this subsidy, nor do I see my way at present to ask the assistance of the Treasury towards the establishment of light railways or road trams in these districts.

Has not a very large sum been spent on the Island of Lewis?

Yes, a good deal has been done for that island.

Flannan Islands Lighthouse

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the fact that the Northern Lights Commissioners have recommended the erection of a lighthouse on the Flannan Islands, and that the Board of Trade have sanctioned the same, he will state if plans and estimates have been prepared; and, if so, the estimated cost; and whether, seeing that the Flannan Islands are a serious danger to vessels trading between America and Great Britain, a portion of the £51,000 provided in this year's Estimates to the Mercantile Marine Fund will be used in starting the preliminary work during the summer months?

said: No, Sir; the plans and estimates have not been prepared. As soon as the state of the Mercantile Marine allows it, the erection of the lighthouse will be commenced; but, at present, that fund is not in a condition to bear such outlay.

Harbours In The Island Of Lewis

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that Portnaguran, in the Point district of the Island of Lewis, was specially recommended by the Highlands and Islands Commission as standing greatly in need of a boat-slip, pier, or harbour, and that up to the present time nothing has been done, steps will be taken to give effect to the recommendation of the Commission?

Portnaguran is one of the three places recommended by the Commission for larger harbours in Lewis, but they remark that there is considerable difference of opinion as to the site. Of the other two, one at Carloway has been finished. The other at Port Ness is under construction. It has not yet been found possible to commence a harbour at Portnaguran, the cost of which is estimated at £30,000. In addition to these, three minor harbours are being constructed from Government funds this season in Lewis. One of them at Portnambothag is only five miles from Portnaguran across the Bay.

Vivisection

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the figures of experiments on living animals, contained in Return No. 103 of this Session, are obtained by the Department from the licensees who perform the experiments, and in that case whether any steps are taken to verify their accuracy; who is the judge as to whether severe pain has been induced, which necessitates the killing of the animal, which is a condition of Certificates A, or A + E, or A + F; whether each of the 56 licensed places has been visited during the year, and how many more than once; whether any of the 121 visits of inspection were surprise visits; and, if so, how many; and whether he has personally satisfied himself that the licences and certificates are all issued only to such places and persons and with such objects, as were contemplated by "The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876?"

The Returns are made by the licensees, and no reason has hitherto been found to doubt their accuracy. The licensee must necessarily be the judge of the fact at the time whether the severe pain has been produced which necessitates the killing of the animal. All the licensed places actually in use have been inspected in the course of the year—19 twice, 20 three times, and several four or five times. The visits of the Inspector are as often made without notice as with notice, and 109 visits were so made without notice during the year in question. The operation of the Act is carefully watched in the Home Office, and I am satisfied that the licences and certificates are issued only to such places and persons and with such objects as are contemplated by the Act.

Am I to understand that the licensee is the judge as to whether severe pain has been induced?

Yes, necessarily so. Nobody else could be the judge.

Food Adulteration

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, considering the strong representations that have been recently made to him by two important deputations as to the extensive adulteration frauds which are being perpetrated, he is prepared to nominate a Select Committee to inquire into the general question of food adulteration?

Some little time ago I received a deputation on the subject of the adulteration of dairy products, and after consulting with my colleagues I intimated that the Government would give its assent to the appointment of a Select Committee. Since then another deputation has urged the widening of the inquiry into the general subject of adulteration, and they pointed out that my two predecessors had agreed last year and the present year to refer the Bill of the hon. Member for Glasgow on the subject to a Select Committee after Second Reading. In view of this, I could not well do otherwise than assent to this wider Committee. It is obvious that it would not be desirable that there should be two such Committees sitting at the same time. I can only hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Glasgow may come to an agreement as to the terms of Reference, so that one Committee may suffice.

Edinburgh Museum

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is any, and if so what, reason why the hours of work of the attendants at the Edinburgh Museum should not be from 9 to 5, as at South Kensington, instead of 7 to 9 and 10 to 4, as they are now?

The attendants are employed between 7 and 9 o'clock in cleaning the Museum. I am not aware that this has been hitherto a matter of complaint. I fear that any re-arrangement of duties must involve a reduction in the number of attendants at present employed, or a reduction of pay owing to the lessening of hours.

The Tithe Disputes In Wales

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the meeting of the Cardiganshire Joint Standing Committee on the 10th of May last, when it appears that a report was read from the Chief Constable that Robert Lewis, the County Court bailiff, was, while levying tithes, assaulted in the presence of the police by two persons who were well known to the police, but that no proceedings had been taken by the police; that it was proposed by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions and seconded by the Lord Lieutenant that proceedings should be taken for assault, but that this proposal was thrown out by the County Council members of the Joint Committee; and that it Was further proposed by the Lord Lieutenant that in all future cases when assaults are committed in the presence of the police the Chief Constable be instructed to take proceedings, but that this proposal was opposed as being out of order by the County Council members, and no decision arrived at; and whether, in view of the serious condition of affairs in Cardiganshire, and the refusal of the Joint Standing Committee to act, he will give direct orders to the Chief Constable, from the Home Office, to take proceedings in such cases, and to take other steps necessary to ensure the carrying out of the law?

I am informed that there were present at the meeting of the Standing Joint Committee 11 Quarter Session members and 11 County Council members, and the Chairman, who was elected at the meeting for the ensuing year, was a Quarter Session member. The resolution moved by the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, which was to the effect stated by the hon. Member, was not thrown out by the votes of the County Council members; but it having been pointed out that the men who committed the assaults on the bailiff had been proceeded against already in the County Court and punished, the resolution was withdrawn in favour of that moved by the Lord Lieutenant, to which the hon. Member refers. No vote was taken on this second resolution, as the Chairman ruled that it was necessary that notice should be given, and the Lord Lieutenant thereupon gave notice that he should move the resolution at the next meeting. Having regard to these facts, I do not think there is any reason for my taking any action in the matter.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether it is not the case that action was only taken in the County Court because the police refused to take action; whether it is not the fact that the County Council members of the Standing Joint Committee persistently refused every effort to have the law carried out; and whether the Home Secretary cannot suggest any mode to compel them to carry out the law?

The latest information furnished to me is that the law is being carried out most effectually.

Is it not the case that the County Council Members who voted on this question are also members of the Anti-Tithe League, and will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps in future to prevent those persons who are particeps criminis from taking part in these proceedings?

The Standing Joint Committee is an elected body, and I have no power over them whatever.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are no less than 118 orders of the County Court still unexecuted, and will he take any steps to vindicate the law?

I should like notice of that question.

The Royal Review At Aldershot

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the occasion of the late Royal review at Aldershot the total strength of the division was 17,600, and that only 11,600 men were on parade; that the deficiency of 50 per cent. is accounted for by sick 642, guard 187, recruits 815, and other duties 4,600; and whether the 4,600 men employed on other duties, such as servants, cooks, workshops, and clerks, who are not available for duty but who are returned as efficient, could be found by employing the Army Reserve?

This information has been telegraphed for from Aldershot, but has not yet been received.

Arising out of this question, I should like to ask whether, in the long interval which has elapsed since the Wantage Committee reported on the unemployed soldiers, anything has been done to relieve the hardships of young soldiers under the short service system?

Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question when the hon. and gallant Member for Essex renews his.

Glasgow Shipowners' Associations And The Manning Of The Mercantile Marine

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Shipowners' Associations of Glasgow were consulted as to the nomination of shipowners to serve upon the Committee on the Manning of Ships in the Mercantile Marine; and whether he is aware that the said Associations are dissatisfied with their representation on the Committee?

In the selection of shipowners to serve on the Committee referred to by the hon. Member the Board of Trade were influenced by the advice of the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, upon which are represented the three Shipowners' Associations of Glasgow. The Board of Trade are not aware that the said Associations are dissatisfied with the constitution of the Committee. Having regard to the extent to which shipowners are represented on that Committee, the Board of Trade are not prepared to make any modification of the arrangements in the direction suggested.

Cricket In Phcenix Park, Dublin

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the fact that a Major Bailey and John Henry Nunn, on behalf of the Phoenix Park Cricket Club, recently applied at the Dublin Police Court for summonses against other cricketers for trespass on the Phoenix Park, stating that the members of the club had been permitted by the Board of Works to erect a building upon it, and they had a resident caretaker; whether the Magistrate stated he would grant a summons for trespass in a different form to that applied for; are the Government prosecutors, and were they consulted by Major Bailey before summonses were applied for; have exceptional privileges and the right to erect buildings on Crown property been granted to cricket clubs in English parks; and if the general body of Dublin cricketers are to be excluded from certain parts of the Phoenix Park in the interest of a particular club, will he state the special claims of this club to Crown favour?

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that the two gentlemen named in the question are trustees of the ground and are obliged to act under a penalty to the Irish Board of Works. Has not the club enjoyed the use of the ground for the last 64 years; was not the summonses taken out at the Dublin Police Court for malicious injury and not for trespass; were not the persons summoned rowdies and not bonâ fide working men, and did they not give false names and addresses?

I think the answer I have to give to the question on the Paper will also afford a reply to the hon. Member for North Fermanagh. The trustees of the Phoenix Cricket Club took proceedings against certain persons for injuring the ground which has been set apart for the Phoenix Cricket Club since 1838. The Magistrate stated that there was not wilful injury, but a clear case of trespass, for which a fresh summons could be issued. The Government were not prosecutors, but were aware of the proceedings as the Board of Works, were subpoenaed to produce documents. I am informed that the ground in question was granted in the year 1838 to the Phoenix Club. Four other grounds have at various times been granted respectively to the Constabulary, the Garrison, the Civil Service, and the Working Men's Club, and it is believed that the general body of Dublin cricketers are members of one or other of these clubs. In addition, the Board of Works have recently prepared a ground, adjoining the Phoenix Cricket Club, for general use, on which at least four separate matches can be played at the same time by any of the public not members of clubs. The existence of the separate grounds, therefore, does not interfere with the use of the Park by cricketers not members of the clubs above mentioned. In the English Royal Parks no exceptional privileges are granted to cricket clubs using the Parks. But in Bushey Park certain local clubs have been permitted to erect pavilions on sufferance.

My only desire is if that these proceedings are sanctioned by the Government, the Government should institute them. If a separate piece of ground is being reserved for the general public I am satisfied.

These gentlemen hold the ground under agreement, and were, therefore, the proper persons to prosecute.

As to the allegation of the hon. Member that the persons prosecuted were rowdies, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that John Henry Nunn, one of the prosecutors, has himself been warned off other cricket grounds for rowdy conduct?

I respectfully appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, if an attack of this nature should be made without notice of the question?

The hon. Member himself made an attack first.

Not on any one named in the question.

The Transvaal Republic

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a report in The Glasgow Herald of a meeting of the Nolks' Vereeniging (or People's Union), a political organisation composed entirely of burghers of the Transvaal Republic, held in April last at Kragersdorp, at which speaker after speaker, all burghers of the Transvaal Republic, stated that the Republic was being extensively robbed; that there was scarcely a Government Office in the country in which pilfering did not go on; that the electoral laws were unjust; that the concessions granted to speculators by the Transvaal Government were becoming a burden on the State too heavy to be borne; that the "uitlanders" (a term which includes all British persons) in the Republic have for years complained bitterly of the intolerable burdens the Government have laid upon the mining industry; whether Her Majesty's Government have finally consented to the placing of Swaziland under the Transvaal Republic against the protests of the Queen Regent and the inhabitants of the country; and what is the present position of the Government in Swaziland?

I have seen the paragraph in question, which was forwarded to me by the hon. Member, and I must be allowed to express my regret that vague allegations of this description against the probity of a friendly State should appear in the form of a question on the Order Book of this House. As regards the question of Swaziland, it is still occupying the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government.

Alleged Racing By Atlantic Liners

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the report in The Standard, of the 24th instant, of the race across the Atlantic between the steamships Majestic and Paris, in which it is stated that the Paris signalled to the Majestic her intention to cross the latter's bows, which was done at no greater distance than 200 or 300 yards, that after this incident a fog suddenly obscured the horizon, and that about 2,400 persons are stated to have been on board the two steamers; and whether the Board of Trade will address the authorities of those great American lines, requesting them to forbid the practice of racing across the Atlantic to the serious risk of the lives of those on board the steamers?

Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the newspaper reports to which the hon. Member refers, and I have made inquiry into the circumstances of the alleged racing between the steamers Majestic and Paris. I am assured that the reports in question are entirely incorrect, that the steamers were never within half a mile of each other, that the Paris did not signal her intention to cross the bows of the Majestic, but that she steadily kept her course. Having regard to the care for safety shown, as I believe, by those answerable for the management of the Atlantic liners, I do not think it necessary for the Board of Trade to further interfere with their discretion or responsibility for the proper navigation of their vessels.

Has the information just given to the House been confirmed by the captain of the Majestic, or is it only the unsupported statement of the captain of the Paris?

Yes, Sir, by both. I have a long telegram from the captain of the Majestic, which I shall be glad to show to the hon. Member.

Aberdeen University Library

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will accord to the Library of the University of Aberdeen the privilege enjoyed by Public Libraries of obtaining Parliamentary Papers to file for reference; and if he will grant to this Library a set of the six-inch Government Ordnance Maps of Scotland, as there is no complete set of these maps north of Edinburgh?

In view of the importance of the Aberdeen University I shall be pleased to arrange for adding it to the list of institutions now supplied with Parliamentary Papers free of charge under what are known as "Speaker's Orders" and Treasury authorities. In view, however, of the cost of sets of six-inch Ordnance Maps, I am afraid that I should not be justified in supplying them gratuitously to the University.

Second Division Admiralty Clerks

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty have yet decided upon the expediency of carrying out the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and the Treasury Minute of the 10th of August, 1889, by establishing staff appointments in various departments of the Admiralty, to which eligible Second Division clerks may be promoted? At the same time, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the vacancies which have recently occurred in the Higher Division staff of the Admiralty, and those which will shortly occur owing to retirements, will be filled up; and, if so, whether the qualifications of all eligible clerks of the Second Division will be considered with a view to the selection for promotion to the Higher Division of the required number to fill these vacancies?

said: I would beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to his question on the 1st of March last, with regard to the clerical establishment of the Admiralty. Both the matters raised in his present questions are included in the general settlement of the staff, which is now engaging the attention of the Admiralty; and when the Committee of the Accountant General's Department has formulated a Report the whole subject will be settled by the Admiralty and the Treasury, and the hon. Member may rest assured that every regard will be shown to the interests of the Second Division clerks.

Public Rights On The Thames

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Com- missioner whether it is true that the Charity Commissioners have sanctioned the sale of an eyot in the Thames near Abingdon; and, if so, whether he is willing to take steps that may prevent this further alienation of public rights in the river?

The Commissioners have given notice of a proposal to sell an eyot in the River Thames belonging to Christ's Hospital, Abingdon, at a price recommended by a surveyor. They are not aware of any public rights affecting the island in question; but before proceeding further they will await an answer to a communication they have addressed to the Thames Conservancy on the subject of the sale.

Portnahaven Lighthouse

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is intended to connect the lighthouse at Portnahaven with the post office in that village by telephone; and when the work will be carried out?

It is intended to connect the lighthouse at Portnahaven with the post office in the village, and preparations for the erection of the wires are already in progress, but I fear it will take some time to get the necessary way-leaves.

Armagh District Lunatic Asylum Loan

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have received an application from the Governors of the Armagh District Lunatic Asylum for a loan of £30,000, under "The Public Works Loans Act, 1893," on the terms authorised by that Act—namely, repayment within 50 years, with interest at the rate of 3½ per cent. per annum; whether the Treasury have declined to sanction the loan on these terms, and have insisted on repayment within 40 years, with interest at the rate of 3¾ per cent. per annum; and whether it is believed at the Treasury that the Exchequer would incur any risk if the better terms authorised by the Act of 1893 were allowed in the case of the loan to the Governors of the Armagh Asylum?

If my hon. Friend will refer to the Act in question he will observe that the fixing of the terms of repayment is left to the Treasury within certain limits. The object of the Act was to enable the Treasury to grant loans for lunatic asylums on the same terms as were previously allowed for sanitary loans, and the words of the section are taken from the corresponding Section (246) of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, under which the terms fixed by the Treasury are:—3½ per cent. with repayment in 35 years; 3¾ percent. with repayment in 40 years; 4 per cent. with repayment in 50 years. I understand that the Irish Government are about to address the Treasury further upon the question, so that, upon the receipt of their letter, the matter will be considered afresh.

Killybegs Pier

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the result of the negotiations between the Irish Congested Districts Board, the Irish Board of Works, and the Treasury respecting the construction of the deep-water pier at Killybegs; and can he say how soon the work of construction will be commenced?

I understand that a member of the Congested Districts Board has within the last few days been deputed to confer with the Board of Works as to the possibility of giving effect to the suggestion of the latter Board for a deep-water quay. If this is agreed upon the only question remaining would be as to whether there will be a sufficient margin upon the railway funds for the proposed contribution by the Board of Works, and the financial position is now being examined.

London Police And Fatal Accidents

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of a fatal accident at Gifford Street, Islington, on Tuesday the 15th instant, after which a man's dead body was allowed to remain in a back yard for a space of 18 hours; and, considering that the house in question was occupied by 22 persons, and that the attention of the police was immediately called to the case, whether it was their duty to remove the body at once to the mortuary; and whether he will give instructions to the police, so that on any future occasion this shall be done?

I have made inquiry of the Commissioner of Police, and am informed that the duty of removing the body lay with the coroner's officer, who was twice warned by the police, who also left particulars in writing at the officer's house. I have, therefore, directed communication to be made to the coroner asking for further particulars and an explanation as to his officer's conduct on the occasion referred to.

The Royal Commission On Tuberculosis

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the date of the appointment of the Royal Commission upon Tuberculosis; is that Commission still prosecuting its inquiry and taking evidence, or have they completed that stage of their proceedings; what is the reason of the delay in the production of their Report; and when the Report may be expected?

The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis was appointed on the 21st of July, 1890. I am informed by the Commission that they have completed the taking of evidence, but have been engaged upon a long and elaborate experimental inquiry. Owing to the illness of one of the inquirers, there has been a delay in the completion of one of the Scientific Reports, but this is now being revised in passing through the Press. Immediately it is printed the Commissioners will meet, and their Report may be shortly expected.

The Imprisonment Of Amelia Gifford

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Amelia Gifford, who was recently sentenced by Sir Peter Edlin to 21 days' imprisonment for intimidation, and who was released on Saturday the 19th of May by his special order, was during her imprisonment given a daily task of 2 lbs. of oakum to pick, which is the task given to prisoners sentenced to hard labour; whether prisoners sentenced to simple imprisonment are, according to the Prison Rules, compelled only to keep their cells in order; and whether, if the facts are as stated, he will take steps to prevent a similar infringement of the Rules in future?

(1) The Governor of Holloway Prison reports that the prisoner Amelia Gifford was not given a daily task of 2 lbs. of oakum to pick, but 1½ lbs., of which she picked a reasonable quantity for a learner, and to which she made no objection. She was not always employed at this work, but occasionally cleaned cells, &c. (2) By the Prison Act, 1865, Schedule 1, Regulation 38, provision is to be made for the employment of all convicted criminal prisoners not sentenced to hard labour, and the instructions to Governors are that such prisoners may be employed at any work of a manufacturing or industrial nature, and that the amount they should be expected to perform should be according to any scale which may be from time to time prescribed for general use. The scale of oakum picking now in force is: for women who are not accustomed to the work, 1½ lbs.; for women accustomed to the work, 2 lbs.

Outrages In A Donegal Churchyard

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that late on Saturday night, the 19th of May, or early on Sunday morning, the 20th of May, the windows of the Roman Catholic Church of St. Agatha, at Cabra, County Donegal, wore smashed, and that some monuments erected in the burial ground attached to the church were injured, and, in particular, a cross which surmounted one of the monuments was broken into fragments, the monument which was most injured being a memorial erected by Mr. John Gullen, a merchant of the town of Donegal, at a cost of upwards of £100, on the grave of his wife: whether he is aware that the Catholic Church of Cabra has repeatedly been the object of sacrilegious outrages, and that expressions blasphemous to the Catholic faith have been affixed to its doors; and whether any steps will be taken to bring the perpetrators of these outrages to justice?

I am informed that five panes of glass were broken late on Saturday night, May 19, in the coach house attached to the Roman Catholic church of St. Agatha, at Cabra, County Donegal; that a monumental stone in the churchyard was injured; that stones were thrown at another monument, but that no injury was done; and that obscene expressions have been written on bills posted on the churchyard walls. These injuries are believed to have been committed by drunken persons, and are not attributed to sectarian bitterness, as all parties in the locality live, I am informed, on amicable terms, and when the church was being built all sects assisted in its erection. The police are using their utmost endeavours to trace the perpetrators of these outrages.

Samoa

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated by Reuter's Agency in regard to Samoa, that the Agent General of the Australasian Colonies has been informed that the Imperial Government were taking steps for a reconsideration of the Berlin Act, and that Mr. Bayard has intimated to the British Government the desire of the United States Government to retire from the Berlin Act?

I have seen the statements referred to, but no communication has been made to any one by Her Majesty's Government to this effect, nor have we received any intimation either from the United States Government or the United States Ambassador of a desire to retire from the Berlin Act.

Admiralty Bolt And Nut Contracts

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if the half-inch bolts and nuts are usually specified in their contracts as hand-made; if the half-inch bolts and nuts now being supplied, or recently supplied, are in accordance with the specification on which the orders were given out; whether the bolts and nuts now being sup- plied are partly hand-made and partly machine-made, and are very inferior to the samples on which the tender or tenders were based; and if permission may be granted to makers and others to inspect the sample bolts and nuts on which the tenders have been obtained?

, who replied, said: There are three contracts under which half-inch bolts and nuts are supplied—namely, wrought iron, bright steel (machined), black steel (not machined). In none of them are the bolts and nuts required to be hand-made. In the first two contracts the supplies have to be in accordance with pattern, but in the last with specification only, subject to inspection. There is no reason to believe that supplies inferior to those contracted for have been received. When tenders are invited the patterns are accessible to makers.

May I be allowed to inspect the contracts?

We shall be happy to show them to the hon. Member.

French Canals

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will endeavour to secure from the British Embassy and Consuls in France a special Report on the recent development of canal traffic in that country, dealing especially with the capital expenditure and the annual cost of working the rates or tolls on various descriptions of merchandise, the organisation of the industry and the wages of the employés, and the effect of the development upon the agricultural districts?

Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris will be instructed to send home a general Report on the system.

Sir Richard Sankey

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury on what ground General Sankey has been retained as Chairman of the Irish Board of Works after attaining the age of 65?

If my hon. Friend will refer to the Return, No. 117, recently presented to Parliament, he will see Sir Richard Sankey's name in a class of cases

"where an officer has been intrusted with the execution of a particular duty which is approaching completion, and it is found that the transfer of the work to another officer who is necessarily less familiar with it would be attended with inconvenience."

Is General Sankey to remain in office till the drainage of the Shannon is completed?

At the time of the decision the Home Rule Bill was before the House, and it was not thought desirable to create a new vested interest.

Is the General to remain in office then till Home Rule has been passed?

[No answer was given.]

Post Office Belt, &C Contract

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Post Office triennial contract for belts, pouches, leggings, &c, amounting to £8,000, has been given to the authorities of Her Majesty's Prison at Wands worth?

As stated in my recent answer to the right hon. Member for East Birmingham, leggings have been obtained from the Commissioners of Prisons for some years, and lately the supply of belts and pouches has been obtained from the same source.

Were tenders invited?

No, Sir.

Irish Railway Rates For Bacon And Pork

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland carry American bacon, Class 2, at lower rates than Irish dead pigs, Class 1; is he aware of the great loss suffered in consequence by the Irish bacon-curing establishments in the North of Ireland; and will he introduce a clause into the Railway and Canal Amendment Act to prevent this from occurring in future?

The Board of Trade have communicated with the Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's question, and are informed that the rates charged for American and home bacon are precisely the same, while dead pigs have always been charged a higher rate than bacon. The Board cannot undertake to introduce a clause into the Railway and Canal Traffic Amendment Bill, as that Bill has been brought in simply to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, and such a clause would be beyond its scope.

My point is as to the difference in rates for Irish pork which is the raw material and for American bacon. I see no reason for the difference.

Yes. But the rates for dead pigs have always been higher than those for bacon. If the hon. Member requires further information, I will endeavour to get it.

Welsh Cathedrals

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when a cathedral is also a parish church, it is intended under the Welsh Disestablishment Bill to transfer its ownership to the proposed Commissioners?

I am making inquiries on this subject, and until my information is complete I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to postpone his question.

Post Office Administration

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has any information whether Postal Orders Nos. 477,618 and 477,619, for £1 each, and Postal Order No. 985,651, for 4s., have been cashed; if so, where, and by whom; whether he is aware that one of the two first-named and the last Postal Orders were posted upon the 30th of March last to Mrs. Morris, 8, Victoria Road, Brentwood, at the Head Office, Head Street, Colchester, and have not yet arrived at their destination; whether, under these circum-stances, the Post Office will undertake either to refund the money or to issue fresh Orders; and whether, when, as in this case, the name of the payee is not inserted, but the number of the Order is known, the Department undertakes to trace or to stop the payment of the missing Order; and why, if so, as the Department was duly advised in this case, that reasonable course for the protection of theft was not followed?

I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member and other Members when they desire information on matters merely affecting the detail work of the Department which do not raise questions of principle to apply by letter to me, and so save the time of the House. As to this particular case, I am unable to trace any correspondence with regard to it. If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish me with the particulars in writing I will cause further inquiry to be made.

Land Titles In Ceylon

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been specially called to the Registration Section of the Administration Report for 1892 of Mr. P. Arunachalam, the Acting Registrar General of Lands in Ceylon in which the grave and imperative need for a registration of land titles in the Colony is shown; whether the plan set forth by the Acting Registrar General has been reported upon by the Governor of Ceylon, and a draft Ordinance for putting it into force has been submitted to the Secretary of State; whether, in the forthcoming Session of the Ceylon Legislative Council, an Ordinance will be presented to carry out the object contemplated in 1863, when Ordinance No. 8 of that year was passed for the interim registration of deeds; and whether, in view of the social and political evils which centre round the land in Ceylon, and the disputes concerning it, the Secretary of State will take such steps as shall insure this important question early attention, with a view to the necessary legislation being undertaken?

The question will be referred to the Governor for consideration and report.

The Case Of Mehdi Hassan

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now aware that Mehdi Hassan, a Civil Servant of the Government of India lent to the Hyderabad State, was dismissed from his post as Home Secretary in that State without reason assigned, and in consequence has applied to be re-employed by the Indian Government under the ordinary Civil Service Rules; whether he has also received information that the Government of India have refused Mehdi Hassan's application and have ordered him to send in his resignation by the 31st of this month on pain of dismissal, basing their decision on the nature of certain evidence given at the trial of a certain action, notwithstanding that the Appellate Court has ruled that the evidence in question had been admitted in error by the Lower Court, and notwithstanding that no judgment has been recorded on said evidence by either Court; whether there is any precedent for thus dismissing an Indian Civil Servant on the ground of evidence which has been admitted in error by a Court of Law, and the truth of which has not been tested or established by any judicial finding; and whether he will take steps to secure that no injustice is done to Mehdi Hassan?

I have learnt from the Government of India that Medhi Hassan was dismissed from his employment by His Highness the Nizan, though not without reason assigned. He applied to be re-employed by the Government of India, who refused the application and ordered him to resign subject to any representation which he might make within two months. The Government of India based their decision on the circumstances in which Medhi Hassan's employment at Hyderabad terminated. I have no knowledge of any ruling having been given by an Appellate Court in regard to the Mittra trial; but, so far as Medhi Hassan is concerned, the decision was one entirely within the power of the Government of India, and Medhi Hassan has not exercised his right of appeal to the Secretary of State. If he does, the circumstances will be carefully considered.

Furious Cycle Riding

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, owing to the numerous accidents caused to pedestrians by cyclists, he will take practical and speedy steps to remedy this growing danger to the public, by giving strict injunctions to the police to use every endeavour to ascertain the correct name and address of those who cause these accidents, so that they may at any rate be obliged to explain their conduct if called upon?

The police use every endeavour to prevent furious riding on bicycles and tricycles, and to enforce the carrying of lamps and bells, or whistles. A public notice is issued by the Commissioner and distributed periodically, calling attention to the law on the subject. Proceedings are taken when practicable, but there is a certain difficulty in this, as bicycles and tricycles are not numbered, and their identification is difficult. It is a question whether it may not become necessary to make it compulsory for cycles to bear a registered number conspicuously displayed.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the case of the pneumatic-tyred cycles, which come silently and stealthily upon one?

My experience is not that of the noble Lord. I hear them continually ringing bells.

Wage Earners And Trade Unions

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, inasmuch as the Treasury cannot give the requisite information, he can order the necessary inquiries to be made with a view to ascertaining the total number of wage earners of the United Kingdom and the proportion who belong to constituted Trade Unions; and whether there is any objection to the results of these inquiries being embodied in a Return and presented to Parliament?

The number of members of Trade Unions was stated by the Secretary to the Treasury in reply to the hon. Member on Thursday last; but the exact number of wage earners cannot be stated, and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the number in each trade for the purpose of comparison with the Union or Unions in that trade. So far as the total numbers of the manual labour class are concerned, I may refer the hon. Member to the evidence given by Mr. Giffen before the Labour Commission and to the last. Census; but the gross numbers there given include domestic servants, agricultural labourers, and other classes among whom Trade Unionism is little developed, so that the proportion of Trade Union members to the total working class does not show the influence of the Unions in particular trades where Unions exist. The Board of Trade cannot promise an inquiry which would really amount to a now Census, especially as in last Census an attempt was made to distinguish between employers and employed in different industries, or groups of industries.

Jabez Spencer Balfour

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation. of the telegram from Buenos Ayres, dated the 23rd of May, which states that the public prosecutor of the province of Salta has pronounced in favour of the extradition of Jabez Spencer Balfour; and if such pronouncement has the force of a judicial decision, and amounts to a declaration that his extradition will be granted by the Argentine Government without further delay?

We have not received any confirmation of this telegram, or of any important decision in the progress of the case.

The Alleged Illtreatment Of The Matabele Wounded

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information in reference to the statement which appeared in a Reuter telegram from the Cape, in the Times of Monday last, to the effect that the allegations of a certain Mr. Lionel Cohen, published in some English journals, as to the ill-treatment of the Matabele wounded, were entirely false, and that he had withdrawn them?

My knowledge of Mr. Lionel Cohen's statement, of the contradiction of them, and of his withdrawal of them is entirely derived from newspaper sources, and I have therefore no official information to convey to the hon. Member.

Prison Administration

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a Committee of Inquiry concerning Prisons has been appointed; and, if so, whether he can now state how it will be constituted, and what will be the terms of Reference?

The appointment of the Committee, which is now complete, is not to be regarded as implying any want of confidence in, still less any censure upon, the existing prison administration. The object is to obtain for the Secretary of State and the public authorities information on various important points, and to make any suggestions to which that information may point. The members of the Prison Committee are Mr. Herbert Gladstone, M.P. (Chairman), Sir Algernon West, K.C.B., Sir John Dorington, M.P., Mr. Haldane, Q.C., M.P., Miss Orme, Dr. J. H. Bridges, late of the Local Government Board, and Mr. de Rutzen, one of the Metropolitan Police Magistrates. The terms of Reference are as follows:—(a) The accommodation provided for prisoners, with special reference in the case of local prisons to the working of Section 17, Sub-section I, and Schedule I., Regulation 26, of the Prison Act, 1865; (b) the definition of "young" prisoners—whether and to what extent young or first offenders should be differently treated; (c) prison labour and occupation, with special reference to the moral and physical condition of the prisoners; (d) visits to and communications with prisoners, with special reference in the case of local prisons to Regulations 54–55; (e) prison offences, with special reference in the case of local prisons to Regulations 56–60.

Will the inquiry extend to convict prisons; is the appointment of the Committee now complete; and, in view of the fact that there was a want of confidence felt in the last Committee of Inquiry, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to place an Irish Representative on the Committee?

The inquiry will extend to convict prisons. The Committee as constituted is a very impartial and able body, and I do not think it necessary to add to it.

But in view of the fact that considerable dissatisfaction was expressed with the Committee appointed three years ago in consequence of there being no Irish gentleman upon it, and as undoubtedly the Committee will have to inquire into complaints made by Irish prisoners at Portland and elsewhere, will the Home Secretary consider the desirability of strengthening the Committee by the addition of some one or more Irish gentlemen?

I will consider any suggestion the hon. Member may make.

Will the inquiry extend to Ireland?

No, Sir; it is a purely Departmental Committee, appointed by the Home Office to inquire into the administration of English prisons.

Wimbledon Rifle Range

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that John Ingram, a grave digger, whilst engaged at his work in Putney cemetery, was struck in the back by a bullet fired from one of the squads of Volunteers practising at the Wimbledon Rifle Range on Tuesday last, 22nd instant, and died of his wounds in the hospital next day; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to the prevention of any further fatal accidents of a like sort in this much frequented neighbourhood?

Yes; my attention has been called to this unfortunate accident. I understand that a military inquiry, ordered by the General Officer commanding the Home District, has been made, and I have no doubt that the result of the inquiry will receive the careful consideration of the Military Authorities with a view to the prevention of further accidents.

The Importation Of Foreign Bottles

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship Cordelia, owned by Messes. Kilner and Sons, of Portmadoc, has recently arrived in the Thames from Hamburg, and discharged into barges at King's Stairs, Rotherhithe, several tons of bottles made in Germany by Messrs. Lewn and Newman, of Hamburg, but having no indication upon them of their foreign origin; instead of which are the English words, on one side of the bottles, "R. White," and on the other side,"¼d. deposit charged on this bottle," evidently meant to convey the idea that these bottles were of British manufacture; and what steps do the Government propose taking to prevent this breach of the law continuing to the injury of our British workmen?

The Commissioners of Customs state that the marks on the bottles refer to the British-made mineral waters to be subsequently placed in them, and not to the bottles themselves, and that there is not, therefore, any offence against the law.

The Smearing Of Mango Trees In Behar

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any Report has been received from the local officials in Behar as to the meaning of the recent smearing of mango trees in that Province; whether the planters and other non-officials have been consulted; whether the area within which the phenomenon has occurred is more or less identical with that in which the Cadastral Survey is being made; whether he is aware that Mr. Gibbon, C.I.E., one of the most experienced planters in Behar, has publicly stated that a political movement is indicated; whether the Government has received Petitions, numerously signed by the agricultural population of Behar, protesting against the survey as a measure that is not supported by a single Native authority, and that is dreaded by all classes; and what period is estimated to be necessary for the survey and settlement of the whole of Behar?

The Government of India are inquiring into the matter to which the hon. Member's questions refer; but, at present, no Report either as to the methods of their inquiry or as to its result has reached me. Pending the receipt of such Report I am unable to answer the hon. Member's questions. With regard to the last of those questions, I have received no precise estimate of the time which the Behar Survey, which is at present confined to four districts of North Behar, is likely to occupy; but it is being carried on as rapidly as is consistent with completeness.

Mixed Trains On Irish Railways

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the unanimous resolution of the Boyle Town Commissioners, praying that the Midland Great Western Railway Company may be allowed to run passenger carriages with certain goods trains to Sligo and back passing through Boyle, and pointing out the extreme hardship inflicted on the travelling public on this line by the existing restriction; and whether he will kindly give the matter his immediate and favourable consideration?

The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the resolution referred to. Since the passing of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, it is quite inadmissible to permit Railway Companies to attach passenger carriages to goods trains. That Act was passed in the interest of public safety, and the Board cannot take the responsibility of relaxing its requirements in such a direction. The Railway Company should be pressed by the Memorialists to give proper facilities to the travelling public.

Recruiting In British Colonies

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State has recommended the Secretary of State for the Colonies (in accordance with Sir F. Plunkett's Despatch of the 12th of May to M. van Eetrelde) to give facilities for recruitment under suitable conditions in the British Colonies on the West Coast of Africa; will he explain why His Majesty King Leopold II. cannot be expected to raise the recruits in his own Free State; and whether provision will be made that recruits in no case shall be either hired slaves or other than entirely free men?

I can give no information as to whether it is easy or not to obtain recruits in the Congo State. No special instructions have yet been considered as to facilities for recruiting in the British West African Colonies, but I must point out to the hon. Member that there are no slaves in British Colonies.

Is it not without precedent for a foreign Power to recruit in a British colony?

If any British subjects were enlisted, would not the stipulations of the Foreign Enlistments Act become operative?

I cannot answer these questions without notice. I can only repeat that no special instructions have yet been considered.

School Attendance In Scotland

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scotch Education Department have any information as to the number of schools in Scotland other than State-aided, and as to the number of children on the roll or in average attendance at these schools; what is the number of children in Scotland between the ages of 5 and 14 who are receiving instruction otherwise than in State-aided schools; and whether the Department will, in their next Report, give statistical information regarding schools in Scotland, other than those which are on the Annual Grant List, setting forth, under separate headings, schools under any scheme authorised by the Department; schools under any other foundation or endowment; schools by companies, associations, or promoters; and all other non-State-aided schools; giving, under each heading, the number of children of all ages on the roll receiving secondary education and elementary education, and, where possible, the average attendance?

The Department issued in 1888 a Return which, amongst other particulars, gave such statistics as could be obtained with regard to schools other than public or State-aided schools. The districts in which such schools exist are a small proportion of the whole; and owing to the refusal of information in many cases the statistics in that respect were not reliable, had they been required for any administrative purpose. I have no reason to think that School Boards do not take account of such schools in their own district; but I cannot undertake to furnish the statistics referred to in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.

Lunatics In Belfast Workhouse

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the reports of the proceedings at the meeting of the Belfast Board of Guardians on the 22nd instant, from which it appears that a letter was received from the City Coroner complaining, among other things, that whereas until the 3rd April last he had received information regarding deaths in the lunatic department which enabled him to decide whether he should hold an inquest or not, this information is now refused him; that the coroner submitted a list of queries concerning the deceased to be answered by the doctor, but the doctor declined to answer these queries; and, if so, by whose directions; and that, notwithstanding the instructions of the Local Government Board, one of the Guardians stated at the meeting that he would incur the risk and responsibility of refusing to report any longer to the coroner deaths that might occur in that workhouse; and whether, considering that there were about 50 deaths out of 490 inmates in this department since the 15th of December, 1893, he will cause the best information to be forwarded to the coroner when he applies for it to the officials of the workhouse?

I have seen a report of the proceedings of the Guardians at their meeting held on the 22nd instant, from which it appears that the statements contained in the question of my hon. Friend are accurately set forth, and I have directed that an Inspector of the Local Government Board should proceed to Belfast to inquire how the matter stands.

Fees On Appointment Of Magistrates

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make applicable to Chairmen of the District Councils, who are ex officio Justices of the Peace during their term of office, which extends to one year only, the fee of £2 which he proposes should be payable by Justices of the Peace who are appointed for life?

The case put by my hon. Friend appears to be of a special kind, and ought, I think, to be dealt with exceptionally. It would, undoubtedly, be a hardship if these gentlemen were required to pay the same fee as ordinary Magistrates.

Insanitary Steamers On The Scotch Coast

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will make inquiries regarding the alleged insanitary state of steamers plying on the north-west coast of Scotland; and whether he will require the owners of these steamers to put and maintain them in a proper sanitary condition?

I can only repeat the reply given by the late President of the Board of Trade to a similar question put to him by my hon. Friend on the 7th instant. No complaints have been made to the Board or to its local officers with regard to the sanitary arrangements on board the steamers referred to, but if any definite complaints are made they shall be carefully inquired into.

Will an Inspector be directed to examine these steamers from time to time?

No complaints have been received, and I suppose that Government Departments usually have quite enough to do without going in search of work.

Magistracy, Co Tipperary

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will any Magistrates be appointed to replace the Magistrates who have died recently in the Petty Sessions districts of Tipperary, Bansha, Cappawhite, Cahir, and Clog-heen, or to replace the Magistrates who, on account of old age or other causes, never attend Petty Sessions in those districts?

Nine recent appointments to the Commission of the Peace have been made in the County Tipperary, and of the Magistrates so appointed one is available in Cappawhite and another in Cahir. The present Lord Chancellor has appointed 24 Magistrates for this county, and he is now considering the appointments of others.

Army Medical Department Report

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Medical Department Report for 1892 has only been issued this month; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that these Reports shall, in the interest of the health and comfort of our soldiers and sailors, be issued at a much earlier date?

The amount of statistical work that is necessary for the compilation of this Report, and the fact that many of the Returns have to come from India and other stations abroad, account, in great measure, for the delay in publishing it, but every effort is made to secure such rapidity as is consistent with accuracy. The principal medical officer in India has been requested to expedite the despatch of the Returns from that country. Practically, the delay that takes place in publishing this Report in no way affects the health and comfort of our soldiers; as any point that may arise is dealt with at once, without waiting for the publication of the Report.

Railway Men As Board Of Trade Inspectors

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the inquiries by Board of Trade Inspectors into railway accidents have, with one or two exceptions, been confined to train accidents; whether, on the average of the past 10 years, the fatalities among railway men in shunting, coupling and uncoupling vehicles, marshalling trains, plate laying, fogsignalling, and other duties have been from 40 to 50 times as numerous as the fatalities to railway servants in the train accidents investigated by Inspectors; and whether, having regard to the importance of accurately determining the causes of these fatalities in accidents other than train accidents, the Board of Trade is now prepared to appoint two or more practical railway men as sub-Inspectors to investigate such accidents, and for other duties?

Without fully admitting the accuracy of the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, I am in a position to say that the Board of Trade recognise the importance of the subject, and that the question of the appointment of one or more practical railway men as sub-Inspectors is under the immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

Has any decision been arrived at?

A decision has practically been arrived at.

In favour of the proposal?

In favour.

The Saltcoats Crofter Settlement

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can now state when the Report of Sir Charles Tupper on the Saltcoats (Canada) Crofters Settlement will be presented to Parliament?

The Report is now in the printers' hands, and it will be presented very shortly.

British Sphere Of Influence In East Africa

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the northerly limit to the British sphere of influence in East Africa which is claimed by Her Majesty's Government; and whether the assent of France has been given to the delimitation of the north-westerly portions of that sphere as set out in the Treaty of the 12th of May, 1894, concluded with His Majesty King Leopold II., Sovereign of the independent State of the Congo?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whence the title of this country is derived to the territories which have been leased to the King of the Belgians; whether the European Powers having interests in Africa are parties to the arrangement, and recognise the title of this country to these territories; whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the bearing on the arrangement of the rights of preemption possessed by France over the territories of the Congo State; whether the British sphere of influence extends to any territory north, east, or west of the 10th parallel north, which forms the northern frontier of the territory leased to the King of the Belgians; and if there be any territory within the sphere of British influence, whether he will state what is its northern, eastern, and western frontier?

The territories leased to the King of the Belgians are within the British sphere of influence as defined in the Anglo-German Agreement of 1890, to which no exception has been taken by any Power having interests in Africa. The effect of the Agreement with the King of the Belgians is that the British sphere, already recognised by Germany and Italy, is also recognised by the Congo State, another adjoining Power, the rights which Turkey and Egypt may have being specially reserved. Any rights of pre-emption which France may possess over the Congo State cannot be affected by the Agreement, which is dependent upon the continuance of the Congo State under the Sovereignty of the King of the Belgians or His Majesty's successors. With regard to the limits of the British sphere of influence, I can only refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Agreements with Germany and Italy.

May I ask whether I am right in the conclusion I draw from these Agreements, that the British sphere of influence does not extend north on the west side of the Nile beyond parallel 12 degrees, and on the east side of the river beyond parallel 11 degrees, there or thereabouts?

So far as our geographical knowledge extends, we believe the limit is accurately indicated by the line drawn in the map which has been laid on the Table of the House and in the terms of the Agreements to which I have already referred. As to the exact geographical extent of these Agreements, I must ask my hon. Friend to compare these Agreements carefully with the map which we have placed in the Tea Room, and which together will give him the most accurate information that it is in my power, or in that of anyone else, to afford him on the subject.

We are speaking of territories larger in extent than Great Britain. Do I derive from my comparison of these two maps a just conclusion that we do not claim any sphere of influence north, on the left bank of the Nile, beyond the 12th parallel, and on the right bank only up to the 11th parallel? I do not tie my hon. Friend down to 50 or 60 miles, but I ask whether this general conclusion is a correct one?

It is quite true that the territories in question are larger than Great Britain, but they have not been so carefully explored. I have given the hon. Member a reference to the Agreement and to the very best maps in our possession, and he must draw his own conclusion from that information.

I wish to know whether I am really to understand that Khartoum is not in the British sphere of influence?

No point as far north as Khartoum has been named in the Agreements to which I have referred as being within the British sphere of influence.

Derelict Land Ix Essex

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will allow the map attached to the Report on Essex Agriculture, showing the extent of land derelict and out of tillage in that county, to be exhibited in the Tea Room of the House for the information of hon. Members?

I think that as the map has been circulated among: hon. Members, and a copy is in the Library, it is not necessary to place it in the Tea Room.

Fur Seal Fisheries

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the recommendations as to the Regulations for the fur seal fishery made by the Tribunal of Arbitration which sat in Paris are binding on British subjects before they have been embodied in an Act of Parliament?

They would not be binding on British subjects so as to make them liable for penalties before being embodied in an Act of Parliament, but they have been so embodied, and I understand the embodiment took place before any infringement could be made.

Trade With The Colonies

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government has determined to give favourable effect to the representations which have been made by the Hon. Sir Charles Tupper, High Commissioner for Canada, the Hon. Robert Reid, Minister of Defence of Victoria, specially delegated by his Government, and the Hon. Sir Thomas M'llwraith, Chief Secretary of Queensland, supported by the Agents General of other leading Colonies, for the amendment of Section 3 of "The Australasian Customs Act, 1873," which in its present form is limited to the Australasian Colonies alone, and thus prevents Dependencies of the Empire distant from each other from concluding mutually advantageous and preferential trading arrangements with each other; and if the Imperial Government intends to be represented at the forthcoming Empire Trade Conference, convened by the Dominion of Canada; and, if so, by whom?

said: Her Majesty's Government are considering the matter in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown. Her Majesty's Government intend to be represented at the Conference of Colonial Representatives which will meet at Ottawa next month to discuss the question of cable and steam communication between Canada and Australasia, and the subject referred to by the hon. Member. I am happy to say that Lord Jersey has consented to attend the Conference on our behalf.

The Course Ok Public Business

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the magnitude of the financial proposals of the Government, to the time which may reasonably be occupied by the Finance Bill in its further stages, and to the desirability that the decision of the House shall be taken upon its provisions without unnecessary delay, the Government will take steps to enable it to be taken at once and continuously?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government intend to ask the House to place further time at its disposal. I will place the Notice of Motion upon that subject upon the Paper to-morrow.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, carried by a majority of 87, a pledge as to which was given, will be excluded?

I trust it will not be excluded, but I will defer any statement until the proper time.

I suppose the discussion will be put down for Thursday?

Yes. There will be ample time given to consider it, as I will put down the Notice to-morrow. I may add that, as I understand some gentlemen wish to make some remarks on the Report of the Vote on Account, I shall put down a Notice to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule to-morrow, and I will undertake to bring the Report on at 11 o'clock, so as to give ample time. I understand that that is the desire of hon. Gentlemen.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I happen to know that various Members felt themselves cut out rather on Friday night, and they desire to raise various points upon the Report. I am sorry that one of them, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford, is obliged to be away to-morrow, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to alter his arrangement. [Cries of "No, no!"]

Canadian Cattle

With reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say that I cannot be here to-morrow. I will ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question on a subject on which I should have had something to say if I had been able to be here—the importation of Canadian cattle. I beg to ask him whether, with regard to the special examination which he has instituted into the health of Canadian cattle, any suspicious cases have been reported to the Department already?

On examination, the lungs of an animal landed at Liverpool by the steamship Toronto, from Montreal, on the 20th inst., and slaughtered on the 23rd inst., were found to present appearances distinctly suggestive of pleuro-pneumonia. The diseased portion is now being made the subject of careful examination by the veterinary officers of my Department, who will report to me the result at the earliest possible moment. So soon as the lungs in question wore received, I invited a number of gentlemen, whose evidence in such matters would be likely to be of value, to inspect the lungs while these were still fresh, and to take careful notes of the appearances presented. I hope that by this means I have secured ample material upon which to base any further investigation which might be decided on.

After this discovery, is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to relax the restrictions now enforced?

I have just said that no decision has been taken on the matter.

The Irish Church Fund

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the loans made by the National Debt Commissioners to the Irish Church Fund are repayable at the pleasure of the Commissioners entrusted with the control of the latter fund; or, if otherwise, then at what times they are repayable; in how many cases English Public Bodies, which had borrowed money from the National Debt Commissioners or the Public Works Loan Commissioners, have within the last five years borrowed money at lower interest in order to repay the loans; and whether he will insert a clause in the Finance Bill, or in the Local Loans Bill, enabling the Irish Land Commission to borrow at 3 per cent. on the security of the Church Fund a sufficient sum to pay off their debt to the National Debt Commissioners? I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the interest on the part of the Irish Church Fund, held for the purposes of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Acts, is shortly to be reduced to 2¾ per cent.; and, if so, why the interest payable to Irish Commissioners is to be reduced, while that payable to the National Debt Commissioners is not to be reduced?

In reply to both these questions, I think it would be most convenient if the hon. Member would discuss the matter personally with the officials of the Treasury. If the hon. Member will do this, he will be given full information.

Adjournment

Manufacture Of Explosives (Waltham Abbey)

Member for West Essex, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—

"The imminent danger to life and property to which the workmen employed in the manufacture of explosives in the Government Manufactory at Waltham Abbey and the inhabitants of the district generally are daily exposed, and to the ineffectual precautions against accident,"

but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

said, he did not think the House would require him to make any excuse for having employed this particular form in order to bring to their notice the dangerous position of his constituents. When they remembered that nearly 900 men were employed in the Government factory, and that Waltham Abbey had about 6,000 inhabitants, and was surrounded on the south and east by the works which constituted the largest factory of explosives in the United Kingdom, it would be seen that these men—the workmen—were living with their lives, not in the hollow of their hands, but on the tips of their fingers. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War might think that the course he (Colonel Lockwood) was taking was not only inconvenient, but unfair, but when the right hon. Gentleman had heard his reasons he would most probably acquit him. There were only, so far as he could see, three courses open to him. In the first place, he might put a question. Well, he had put many questions, but without attaining any satisfactory result. In the second place, he might have waited for the Army Estimates. His experience in the House was not extensive, but he had been there long enough to know that the opportunity he sought, if he waited for the Estimates, would be afforded him some time in the month of July or August, on some sultry evening when there was a thin attendance and the House was weary. His constituents were not anxious to wait for such a period. The third course he might have taken would have been to move an Amendment on the Report of Supply, but he had endeavoured to bring a question forward on this stage of Supply on a previous occasion, and had failed to obtain an answer. Under the circumstances he felt that he was entitled to bring the present question forward on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, having regard to its vital importance to his constituents. The Government had had the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the condition of the Waltham Works in their hands six weeks. The Committee began its inquiry on the 26th of January, and concluded on the 16th of February, and from that time until now he and his constituents were ignorant as to what measures were to be adopted for their safety and the safety of the men employed in the factory. The Report was not a large one. The conclusions of the Committee were contained in eight pages of large print; therefore, he thought that the time the Government had had to act upon it had been ample. It might be said that the new buildings for the manufacture of cordite were being pushed on day and night, but it must not be forgotten that the lives of at least 900 men were at stake. Before he proceeded further he would state that he did not desire to cast a shadow of blame upon the Superintendent of the factory, Colonel M'Clintock—an officer of great capacity and wide experience. That officer had earned the sympathy of all the men in the factory by his kindness to the wives and families of the men killed and injured in the explosions. It was the system he wished to blame. From 1871 to December 13th, 1893, the Waltham Works had been very fortunate. There had been few explosions, only three persons having been killed, but if the Report of the Committee was to be believed, this was owing more to good luck than to good management. On the 13th of December, 1893, an explosion of E. X. E. powder which was being pressed into prisms took place. Nine men were killed, and one was injured. One was killed on the spot, and the other eight subsequently died of burns. One man, and one man only, escaped. Then followed the explosion of March 1, 1894, of guncotton in the dipping-house, when four men were injured. That was followed by the explosion on the 30th of March in the settling pond; and the last explosion took place on the 7th of May, when four men were killed and 20 hurt. There were four explosions in six months, in which 13 persons were killed, and 25 wounded. He ventured to think that that was a "definite matter of urgent public importance." He did not think that his constituents were cowards, but after such an experience as this, surely he had a right to ask that immediate steps should be taken, and to ask what steps they would be. After the Cam House explosion the hon. Member for Preston asked if the Government worked under the Explosives Act of 1875. An evasive answer was given, but the hon. Member, with the persistence which was characteristic of him, insisted on an answer, and he then found that under Section 97 the Government exempted themselves from the operation of the Explosives Act. The Rules-laid down for the regulation of private factories were very stringent, but the Government, who were the largest employers of labour of this kind, were exempt. Well, the next step the Government took was, he confessed, the right one after the explosion of the 13th December. They appointed a Committee of Inquiry. He did not quite know what sort of a Committee it was—whether a Government Departmental Committee or a public Committee. The Committee consisted of four persons. There was Colonel Majendie, who was, perhaps, very properly placed on the Committee, being Inspector of Explosives and a gentleman with an intimate knowledge of the subject. There was Sir F. Abel, who could hardly be looked upon as an independent member of the Committee, having regard to his connection with the War Office. There was Colonel Lloyd, Assistant Adjutant General at Woolwich; and there was Lord Sandhurst, the Chairman. He did not say a word against Lord Sandhurst. He believed him to be a capable and painstaking man, but to appoint the Under Secretary for War Chairman of a Committee practically inquiring into the conduct of the War Office was a most extraordinary course for the Government to take. The Committee in their Report said—

"When the Explosives Act, 1875, was passed, Section 97, which exempts Government factories from its operation, was, it is understood, adopted in a very large degree, because it was considered that the Government Department principally concerned, namely, the War Office, could be depended on to secure throughout its factories, without having recourse to the machinery provided for private factories, the same beneficial results which the application of the Act and the introduction of an independent system of inspection were designed to effect in the civil establishments.

With this view the Committee arc disposed to concur.

But if it should be found impracticable to secure, through the independent action of the War Department, results corresponding to those which the action of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives has accomplished in the private factories, then in the judgment of the Committee it would certainly be in the highest degree expedient that the question of subjecting the Government establishments where explosives are manufactured, manipulated, or stored to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives should be taken into serious consideration."

That showed that the Government knew perfectly well when this Committee was appointed that the War Office was practically on its trial, and yet in the face of that they appointed the Under Secretary for War to the Chairmanship. The War Office had chosen to exempt itself deliberately by Section 97 from the Explosives Act of 1875. An explosion took place, and it was only right that the War Office should take the consequences of it, and that a Committee should examine into the line of conduct pursued by them, and it was not right for them to appoint an official Chairman to preside over that Committee. But, notwithstanding the appointment of an official Chairman, the evidence was so plain that the Committee were obliged to make a Return in the form contained in the Blue Book. There were too many Blue Books issued for hon. Members to read them all, but any person who had taken the trouble to read the one to which he referred must have observed a condemnation of the Government system in every page and every line of it. There was shown to have been at Waltham Abbey a lack of system, of discipline, and of ordinary precautions such as would be taken in every private factory in the United Kingdom. A man who had worked 15 years at tills Government establishment and was now the Superintendent of a private factory in the West of England had told him (Colonel Lockwood) that not a day passed at the Government factory without the Rules—most important Rules—being broken. The number of men in or about the Cam House at the time of the explosion was largely in excess of the number allowed in private factories. There were 11 men at work—eight at four machines, the foreman, and two boatmen. Nine of these had succumbed to their injuries, and only one man had escaped uninjured. The Committee, in their Report, stated that the search for matches was most inefficient. The Rule as to searching for matches was the most important one in force in private factories. In every gunpowder factory in the world those who went in were searched for matches. The Committee found that at the Royal Factory the precautions wore not applied in a strict or efficient manner. Although so many people were passing into the works, only one attempt was made to search daily—at 1.10 in the afternoon— and that in a most perfunctory manner. If the foreman's evidence was to be believed—

"They did not trouble about searching men on night duty."

The Superintendent could not refer the Committee to any written rule or regulation requiring daily searching, and the Committee, therefore, found that the whole system of search designed to secure the exclusion of lucifer matches was very weak and ineffective. They also said that there were very grave defects in the system of discipline and precautious prevailing at Waltham Abbey, and that there was urgent necessity for the adoption of disciplinary measures for their more vigorous enforcement. There he thought he had a confirmation of what he had said, that he was within his right in bringing forward the present Motion. He considered that there was urgent necessity for measures to be taken. More than a month had passed, and they knew of nothing the Government had done. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had any right to complain—if he did complain—of the method adopted of bringing the question before the House. The evidence given before the Committee went to show that the precautions adopted at Waltham fell short of those found necessary in private factories. Indeed, the evidence had clearly established that great laxity had prevailed in this direction. If he could help it, he was not going to allow this great laxity to continue. To go on to the second accident, it was true that was caused by the rashness of one of the unfortunate men, who still lay shattered and mangled in bed. He was an unfortunate friend of his (Colonel Lock-wood's), and would be. he was sure, unwilling to throw the blame for the accident on anyone else. But this accident really occurred through want of discipline. No one had a right in the factory to be experimentalising on his own account. Then followed the explosion in the settling pond—the settling pond being a small pond at the bottom of the nitro-glycerine magazine where the waste stuff was drawn off. When this waste was at a certain heat it was exploded purposely. The authorities, it was true, were anxious to spare the nerves of Mr. Findlay, the foreman who had been injured in the dipping-house explosion. He did not think the Financial Secretary to the War Office was right when he said this explosion only frightened two or three old women.

No, no. I did not make any such statement as that.

said, if that were so, he was sorry he had misquoted the hon. Member. He thought the hon. Member had said something to the effect that the explosion only made a loud noise and frightened a few people.

said, his statement had been that, though the explosion made a loud noise so as to cause alarm, it was followed by no accident to individuals or property. It did cause a large amount of surprise to those who were responsible for firing the material.

said, he gladly accepted that correction. But the explosion certainly caused alarm in the minds of the inhabitants of Waltham Abbey already startled by two previous explosions. After this came the most disastrous explosion that had occurred— namely, that on the 7th of May at 10 minutes past 4 in the afternoon of two tons of nitro-glycerine. Four men were killed and 20 wounded—the wounds being slight and caused by falling glass in neighbouring buildings. The buildings in which the cordite was manufactured were situated south or south-east of the town. They were only about 500 yards as the crow flies from the main street of old Waltham Abbey. There were three houses—first, the nitrating house, then the purifying houses from which the liquor ran down in the form of nitro-glycerine into the magazines. The two houses in which the nitroglycerine was stored exploded one after the other, and of course the result was most disastrous. The House could imagine what would be the effect of the explosion of two tons of nitro-glycerine in close neighbourhood to a town of 6,000 inhabitants. On the side of the road opposite to the factory there were a farm and buildings placed there before the Government works were established. These buildings were shattered, and it was a fact that the windows of conveyances passing along the road were blown in, and a great deal of alarm and confusion caused. As a fact, if the wind had not been in a contrary direction, half of the town would have been in ruins today. The manufacture of cordite was one of the most dangerous processes that could be carried on. To begin with, we know little or nothing of the cordite powers and conditions under which it would explode; but the Government did know, or ought to know, that the manufacture of nitro-glycerine was a work of extreme danger — pronounced by able chemists to be so—so dangerous that though the Government had tried to get private firms to tender for cordite manufacture, they could not get them. He wondered what the Government of this country would do in case of war if their works were blown up. He had much doubt if they had a right to go on with the manufacture of this particular powder. Its manufacture could never be safe. Cordite was chosen in days when smokeless powders were young. Now we had plenty of non-nitrate to choose from. Were the Government going to continue the manufacture of this particular powder to the imminent danger of workmen and the neighbourhood? Surely, if the manufacture of cordite was to be continued, the works should be more isolated and the store of finished nitro-glycerine and cordite be reduced to a minimum. The Member for South Manchester had asked if there was a chemist in charge when the explosion occurred. "Yes," said the Financial Secretary; but, as a matter of fact, who did the House think was the chemist in charge of this most delicate and dangerous manufacture?—a poor young man of 22 years of age. Could foolish economy and foolhardiness go further? The Financial Secretary stated that —

"When appeals to the benevolence of the neighbourhood were made on a late occasion, it was in apparent ignorance of the fact that any allowance from public funds would be given."

A statement of that kind had a most disastrous effect on public sympathy. What was the truth of the matter? The allowance was in most cases a miserable one, and very frequently the relatives of sufferers got nothing at all. He wrote to the public Press setting out the whole terms of the Warrant. The result of the distribution of money in regard to the Cam House explosion was that Mrs. Massey got £10 pension and £14 for the child; Mrs. Rudkin obtained no pension, but a gratuity of £30; Mrs. Hare got £24 7s., while Mrs. Bailey and Mrs. Laman got nothing. The relatives of Watts, Rudd, Clayden, and Jennings likewise got nothing. In reference to the explosion in May, 1894, Mrs. Ingram, for herself and four children, got a gratuity of £134, with no pension. In Bennies' case the father and mother would get nothing. Mrs. Frost would obtain 5s. a week, Mrs. Suckley would get £18 pension a year or 7s. a week, and in this latter case the husband was a foreman earning 39s. a week. He thought that the House ought to know what provisions were adopted by the Government for the safety of the men engaged in powder mills. If the manufacture of cordite was continued the buildings ought to be more isolated; there should be a leading and experienced chemist in charge; and he urged that where an accident did happen the scale of pensions and gratuities should be revised in order that widows and relatives should not be starved, and so that inhabitants of places which might be damaged should be suitably recompensed.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— ( Colonel Lockwood.)

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken mainly from the point of view of his own constituents. There was, however, another view of the question. The condition of things at Waltham was nothing short of a national disgrace, from the responsibility of which the House of Commons itself was by no means free. It was by the grace of the House that these Government factories were exempt from the precautions which were taken in the ease of all private works; and if similar explosions occurred at a private factory large compensation would have to be paid, not only for the lives lost but for the property injured. So far from fewer precautious being taken at these Government factories, he contended that they should, if anything, set an example to the private factories. What was the good of giving Government workmen an eight hours day if precautions were not taken to safeguard their lives? He would not, for two reasons, deal with the cordite factory— first, because it was known that he was prejudiced against cordite, and, next, because they had not yet received a definite Report. Limiting his observations, therefore, to the gunpowder factory, and taking the least dangerous portion of it —namely, the "camp houses," where the explosion occurred, he would contrast the precautions taken there with those in force at private factories. In the case of the latter, the rule was that even when 5001b. of gunpowder was stored it must not be stored within 100 yards of any private building, within 900 yards of any Government factory, or within two miles of any residence of the Queen. In no powder or other explosive factory in England were they allowed to have, under any circumstances, more than six persons present where machinery was at work, but at Waltham there were 11 men, of whom nine were killed. In other works there must not be more than one machine in one room, but here there were four machines in one room, and these not properly guarded. Again, Colonel Ford, the Home Office Inspector of Explosives, insisted in the case of private factories that all gunpowder should be removed from a room where repairs were taking place, that all steel tools should be covered with leather, that no meals should be taken in the work-rooms, and that the whole of the buildings should be lined with wood and varnish, all which matters were ignored at Waltham; and it appeared from the evidence that the Regulations for searching workmen to prevent the introduction of matches, &c, were carried out in a most superficial way. They were told that there was a triple line of defence in this respect—that the men were searched at the gates, that there was another search in the place in which they changed their clothes, and a further search in the shop or shed in which they carried on their work. With regard to the search at the gate, he found that it was left entirely to the discretion of the constable on duty as to whether a man should or should not be searched, and that not more than one man in ten was ever searched at all. When the search did take place it was useless, because, according to the evidence which was given, it simply consisted of touching the outside of the men's pockets. As to the arrangements in the place where the men changed their clothes, it was the case that about 200 of the men entered the rooms together, and that there was only one official to examine them. During meal times the men had access to the rooms, and there was nothing whatever to prevent them from putting on any garment under their smocks and so carrying it with its contents into the workshops. The search in the workshops was the search on which the Superintendents were supposed to rely. Colonel McClintock in his evidence, speaking with all the authority of the Superintendent of this factory, said that these men were searched daily and rigorously in the workshop itself. His attention was called to the fact that there was no rule on the subject, and he had to admit it, but he said he thought that was the practice. The men were not searched either in passing through the gate or in the dressing room, but the Superintendent thought they were searched in the workshops. What were the facts? A foreman who had been working in this particular house—hon. Members would recollect that this explosion took place at night — said, it being his duty to search the men—"We did not trouble much about searching at night. "It would seem to anyone that the danger at that time was greater even than in the daytime. And in the daytime of what did this "daily and rigorous search," of which the Superintendent spoke, consist of? The evidence was that

"Once a fortnight, when everybody knew it would take place, were these men searched at all."

Was not that a piece of inconceivable idiotcy which could not take place anywhere else than in a Government factory? Then at night what was the practice? A man was sent round, the Committee were told, to pay surprise visits during the night; but the evidence showed that he only went round once—at 9 o'clock; that he merely looked in at the door and asked if all was right. "We"—that is, the men—"say 'Yes,' and then he goes off to bed." That was not the way to inspect factories of this kind. Other men who had been employed in the factory for two years gave evidence. One of them said—

"I have not been searched anywhere while I have been in the place half-a-dozen times;"

and the other said he had not been searched at all—

"The foreman merely says, I suppose your clothes are all right.' They would sometimes run two or three months without even asking us."

There were no tell-tale clocks to show when the inspection visits were made, and even if the visits were made no Reports had to be presented. Colonel Ford was asked whether, if there was no written Report, he would consider the system faulty. He said—

"Yes, and if an accident happened I should call prominent attention to it."

So necessary was a stringent search considered by the Home Office in the case of other factories that Inspectors went round the country to pay surprise visits, but in the case of the War Office factories no such inspection was made at all. A nominal search only was made by the War Office officials. People came into these factories from the barges bringing coal from contractors. They were allowed to pass in and wander over the place wherever they liked without any pretence of search at all. These men brought in matches. One of the foremen said—

"I Wave myself repeatedly found matches about the grounds and carried in on men's boots; they were live matches."

Matches were found lying about in this Government factory where cordite and gunpowder were manufactured. But the Superintendent had no control over those men coming in; he could not punish them. All he could do was this—

"The colonel would write to the contractors and say that that man was not to be allowed to go there again."

That showed pretty well how these factories were managed. Then, on the general question of Rules, what did the Committee say?—

"These Rules are wholly insufficient, and even when they do deal with any matters of importance they are so badly worded and so unintelligible that it is almost impossible for anybody to understand them, and even if they were plain they are not brought, properly before the men."

That was a scandalous thing in this vaunted Government Department, which considered that it carried on its business so well that it had no need to be placed under the Regulations which applied to private factories. The Committee only dealt "with a few of the Rules, but in summing up the matter they

"desired to guard emphatically against the impression that the defects mentioned constituted even an approximately exhaustive list, and the inquiry had not been mainly concentrated on one particular house in the factory."

All the evidence was not general, but arising simply and solely in connection with the set of buildings where this lamentable occurrence took place. So that the House did not get from the Report even the opportunity of discussing the gross mismanagement at this Government factory. He had had a good deal of experience in these matters, and had found out that though Committees might report no action followed. This must be said ungrudgingly of the present head of the War Department: that he was the best Minister at the War Office for many years, and for that reason it was well to press upon him the absolute necessity of getting these matters put right. This was not a Party question at all; it was entirely a question affecting the lives of men in these Government factories. In that matter the Department was plainly responsible; and when the House had such evidence brought before it, it was their bounden duty, even at tedious length, not to let the opportunity pass by for insisting that these factories should be put upon the same conditions of safety, and that the same precautions should be used there, as were observed in other factories. Turning again to the Report of the Committee, what did they say with regard to the house where this explosion took place with regard to the engines used there? Those engines were German cam. machines. Even in Germany those machines were being disused on account of the extreme danger attending them. At one of the most important private gunpowder factories in England, where two of those machines had been bought at a cost of £3,000, they had to be given up after a few weeks' experience, and the capital sunk in them sacrificed, on account of their being so dangerous. Would not the Government also abandon them? It was stated in evidence that twice a day sometimes the plungers of those machines broke down, and had to be repaired on the spot by the men. Another matter to which attention should be called was the absence of fire appliances in a factory of this kind. It might have been thought that though no precautions were taken against explosions, that when they did occur at any rate proper hydrants and appliances would be provided against consequent fires. But the fireman stated in evidence that he had only one small hydrant, and though he applied he failed to get a better one. In answer to Question 1211 he said—

"I have also applied that hydrants might be laid down to the upper island, but the authorities at the War Office would not allow them."

There at any rate, was a case where it was not the fault of the Superintendent, but distinctly of the War Office; that in this badly-managed factory where explosions took place no fire engines or hydrants were provided for putting out fires. He wondered what answer the right hon. Gentleman would give to all this. Not, he hoped, the stereotyped War Office answer—delay. If delay were interposed the whole thing would blow over once more and be forgotten. This would not be the first time such a result had followed at the War Office. Who was responsible for this state of things? The last time a similar case was brought before the House the men who ought to have been discharged and punished were promoted and rewarded, while the unfortunate men—but for whose public spirit and patriotism the ease would never have been heard of—were punished, degraded, and finally driven out of the factory altogether. He hoped they would not have that result under the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that he would not resort to the old War Office plea of delay. It was a month after the previous explosion before a Committee was appointed, and a month after the Report was made before it was laid on the Table, and he very much doubted whether it would have been produced yet but for the subsequent explosion forcing the hand of the War Office. Let the right hon. Gentleman not tell the House that the opinions of experts must be obtained. They had been obtained. Colonel Majendie, Professor Abel, and all the experts had been examined. The chief complaint against the War Office was that they had no experts at Waltham Abbey. Good heavens ! At what other factory like this in the world would a colonel of artillery be allowed to be appointed Superintendent? Hon. Members had been instrumental in getting civilian Superintendents appointed at Woolwich, and he was really sorry to see a good officer really degraded by being-placed in such a position. The Committee had stated that it was time this system should cease at Waltham Abbey, as it had ceased at Enfield. The lives of hundreds of men ought not to be left at the mercy of ignorance and inexperience. Could not, at any rate, the War Office carry out two recommendations of the Committee, for which no further expert was required, and for which no further delay or consideration was required? The Committee recommended that if they could not manage this factory better than they had done (and they had not reformed after long experience) it should be put under Home Office inspection. The adoption of those two recommendations would go a long way to remove the evils complained of. While the matter was being delayed the lives of men were in jeopardy in these buildings, while work was going on night and day, Sundays and week-days. They were replacing these buildings for manufacturing cordite as they were, only substituting brick instead of wooden walls— without other alteration. And no change was made in the rules or practice at the factory. If the Department asked for further time the House could not give it them. These were not questions for the opinions of experts, but matters of common sense. It was only common sense that these factories should be regulated in the same way as private establishments; and as the Government were responsible for the lives of these men, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that this work was carried on with ordinary precautions not only for the protection of property, but, what was far more valuable, the lives of the men engaged in it.

Sir, I entirely sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite in the deep interest which he naturally takes in this subject, and I fully appreciate also the importance which the House at large must attach to it. At the same time, I should not be doing my duty or expressing my feelings if I did not protest in strong terms against this particular method and this particular time being adopted for bringing it before the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the urgency of the matter, but he could only use that plea if there had been on the part of the Secretary of State or of the Financial Secretary any neglect of duty, any undue delay, or any disposition to hide the facts from the House or to ignore the importance of the question. There has been no such delay, no such secrecy, and no such neglect. From the very first moment to the last we have done all that has been in our power to meet what we believe to be the necessities of the case, and therefore I should have thought it more in accordance with the conditions of Parliamentary procedure to have waited until the legitimate opportunity was afforded by the Army Estimates, rather than to interrupt perhaps the most important business of the Session with the consideration of a subject which, though important, is not of that degree of urgency with which hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to regard it. I need not waste time in expressing my feelings with regard to these explosions, my sympathy with those who had suffered by them, and my sense of their great significance. We have shown at the War Office our sense of their importance by the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter thoroughly. My hon. and gallant Friend cavilled at the appointment of that Committee because Lord Sandhurst, the Under Secretary, was Chairman; but I could not have made a better appointment if I had searched the whole country over for a man to conduct the inquiry. I cannot understand my hon. and gallant Friend imputing, as he did, some idea of Lord Sandhurst being likely to make a one-sided Report.

I bog pardon; I did nothing of the sort.

If the hon. and gallant Member meant anything he meant, I suppose, that an official like Lord Sandhurst would be apt to gloss over anything like backsliding or errors on the part of the Department. Is there any sign of that in the Report? On the contrary, the very Report which Lord Sandhurst's Committee had supplied hon. Members with furnishes all the materials for their denunciations of the War Office in this matter. I do not at all defend the state of things which has been disclosed by the inquiry. I deplore the fact that it is evident there has been great want of discipline and a great want of good arrangements in these very delicate processes. There is no doubt about it, or about what the Committee, after a long and minute inquiry, has recommended. But all the recommendations which the Committee have made have been, so far as the War Office is concerned, put into force. Instructions have been given by the Financial Secretary that with the greatest stringency the particular alterations of system recommended by the Committee should be carried into effect. The whole subject which the Committee had to deal with is divided naturally into two parts. It is so dealt with in their Report: first of all, the particular circumstances of the house in which the explosions took place and the precautious to be taken to prevent their recurrence; and, secondly, the general question of danger buildings not only at Waltham Abbey but at Woolwich and other places under control of the War Department. That, of course, would be a more complicated matter, which would take a longer time to deal with; and, therefore, the Committee wisely left that part of the subject over and devoted their inquiry to the circumstances of the particular explosion.

Is this the first intimation of these recommendations being put into force?

It may be the first intimation to my hon. and gallant Friend, but the Financial Secretary has directed that the most strenuous efforts should be made to correct the weaknesses of the system that have been disclosed by the inquiry. Whether all the changes recommended have been carried out is not the question. The question is whether they are going to be carried out, and I promise that there shall be no delay beyond that which is absolutely unavoidable. When the hon. Member for Preston says there has been delay, I deny that entirely.

The question is— Will the right hon. Gentleman put the factory under Home Office inspection, and appoint a civilian permanently at the head of it as Superintendent?

These are questions of policy which affect the future. The most important question is with regard to the precautions taken under the present system day by day against danger. I have no pedantic objection to the factory being put under Home Office inspection, but I am informed, not by those connected with the War Office, but by those who administer the Rules of the Home Office, that it is very doubtful whether it would be to the advantage of the factory to place it under those Rules. They say it would be more effectual and practicable that such an establishment should be subject to periodical inspection and report by some officer of the Home Office. As a matter of fact, it is admitted by the Home Office that the Rules of Waltham Abbey are more stringent in many respects than the Home Office Rules them-selves.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman where is the evidence of that?

The evidence of that is my statement of what has been communicated to me by the responsible officials of the Home Office. It is a very moot and debateable question in the interests of security whether more would be gained by putting the factory under Home Office Rules like other similar establishments throughout the country, seeing that the existing Rules are in accordance with Home Office ideas, than by continuing the present system, and having at the same time a special inspection and report periodically by a high officer of the Home Department. Whichever of these two systems is considered to give the largest amount of security I am ready to adopt without any prejudice on one side or the other. The hon. Member for Preston may rest assured that, wherever it is disclosed in the Committee's Report that the existing system is prejudicial to safety, a change will be made without delay. But not only has there been the explosion which is the subject of this inquiry; there has also been an alarming explosion, not in the cordite factory properly speaking, as has been represented, but in the nitro-glycerine factory. Cordite, I am happy to tell the House, has continued to give the very best results with regard to safety and in every other respect. It is a most singular tiling to those of us who have no knowledge of the chemistry of these processes that, whilst gun-cotton is one of the most dangerous materials to deal with, and nitro-glycerine is almost as dangerous to touch or move, if you unite these two materials so as to form cordite the danger disappears, and you have a material which can be handled with the greatest safety. As far as the manufacture of cordite is concerned, I need not say that we are in the infancy of the science, and we cannot dogmatise at present as to the proper course to take with regard to its manufacture, but I believe myself that the dangers of this manufacture can be reduced to a very great extent, and we shall, of course, do our best to take advantage of any experience we may gain. The hon. Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood) said it was a scandal, or, at, all events, an unjustifiable danger, to have a cordite factory so near a town with 6,000 inhabitants. I can only say that if the inhabitants, through their Member, object as strongly as they seem to do to the presence of this factory among them, we shall, of course, if that view be enforced as it has been to-day by local opinion—

I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I will not be misrepresented. I did not state anything approaching what he is attributing to me. What I said was that the War Office ought to acquire more laud round the cordite factory, so that it. might not be so close to the houses of the town.

My hon. and gallant Friend must know that laud is not to be had by the mile at Waltham Abbey.

There is plenty of land.

If, therefore, we are to take a wider space for these operations, I am afraid we shall be driven against our desire to some other part of the country. But in the meantime, we are acting under the advice of the very authorities who have been quoted! in this Debate—Colonel Majendie, Sir P. Abel, and other men who are the best qualified to advise us. In the plans that have been made for the further reconstruction of the works at Waltham Abbey we shall endeavour under their advice to combine safety with efficiency as far as possible. I do not believe it will be found necessary in general to have on the works such a largo quantity of nitroglycerine as there was there on this occasion. I believe it would be found possible to carry on the manufacture of cordite and yet to have a much smaller store of nitro-glycerine in hand, so that the danger may be as far as possible mitigated. My hon. and gallant Friend complained of a lack of sympathy for the widows and orphans of the men who lost their lives by these accidents. I can assure him that all is done for them that is possible under the Treasury Regulations dealing with cases of the kind. The Government have shown their disposition in the matter by the clause they introduced into the Employers' Liability Bill extending its provisions to workmen in Government establishments. The sums that are given in such cases to the widows and orphans are not intended to keep them without their making any contribution towards their own support. But I may remind my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lockwood) that he himself went over with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Woodall) the list of widows and children of those killed and that he expressed himself as fairly satisfied with the amounts that were to be paid. [Colonel LOCKWOOD: No.] At all events, it was proved to my hon. and gallant Friend that no person dependent upon the men who were killed had been overlooked.

There were several who got nothing.

No case of either the widow or the child or the mother of a workman dependent upon him was omitted or overlooked. I do not know that it is necessary for me to occupy more of the time of the House. The Committee, which has proved itself so admirably qualified to inquire into the matter, has all but concluded its inquiry, although it has not yet presented its Report upon the subsequent misfortune at the nitro-glycerine works. I hope to receive that Report in the course of a few days, and our action will be taken upon it. The Committee will then proceed to inquire into the general question of danger buildings, which, as I have said, they have put off, owing to the more immediate urgency of the questions they have already dealt with, and I can only express my firm determination, which I am sure is shared by every man who is connected with the Department, to lose no opportunity of carrying into effect any well-considered advice or recommendation of the Committee, which is likely to secure greater safety, not only to the men who work so faithfully in our service, but in the district in which the works are situated.

said, that nobody who had heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech could doubt that he was fully alive to the importance of the question, nor could anyone doubt that the important announcement, which had been drawn from him as to the steps which were being taken, thoroughly justified his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lockwood) in bringing the question before the House. He (Mr. Brodrick) must enter his protest against the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that this question ought to have been postponed until it could be brought up upon the Estimates. The pledge which had been given by the Government as to the Army Estimates had not been carried out. That pledge was that the Army and the Ordnance Factory Estimates should be brought on for discussion in April, or early in May. He knew that circumstances had been too much for the Secretary for War in this matter, but inasmuch as the pledge had not been carried out, his hon. and gallant Friend could not be blamed for having made an opportunity for bringing this important subject under the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that objection was taken on the Opposition side of the House to the appointment of Lord Sandhurst as Chairman of the Commit tee. That was not the case. The right hon. Gentleman had very fairly said that the character of Lord Sandhurst's Report would be the best indication of his appointment. The objection taken by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lockwood) was practically that a man could not be a judge in his own case. Inasmuch as the Committee had to go into the question of the construction of buildings for which the War Department was responsible, it was obviously desirable that the impression should not get abroad that the War Office was sitting in judgment upon its own performances. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had stated that attention had been drawn not only by the present Superintendent but by the late Superintendent of the works at Waltham Abbey to defects in the construction of the buildings, and that no notice had been taken of these representations by the War Office.

was understood to say that the cam houses had been reconstructed, and were now separated not only by the intervening water wheel, but by solid traverses.

said, that was a very important element in the matter. As to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), if any representations were made such as those suggested to the late Government, the late Secretary of State was never aware of the circumstance, and he (Mr. Brodrick) could not find any reference to it in the evidence. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury) had also said that artillery officers were shovelled into the very important position of Superintendent without having any special knowledge or training, and that it was the intention to remove them after five years' service. All that the late Secretary of State had laid down was that, instead of these appointments being for life, they should be for five years, the object being that if the man appointed did not prove to be the best man for the position he might be removed without having any slur cast upon his character. It was certainly not the intention to limit the appointments to five years. The House itself must take some share of the responsibility for the fact that the buildings of the factory at Waltham Abbey were too near together. The War Office bought the best site it could command, and stinted no money for the purpose. It could not go very far from the town, or otherwise it would have to go to the other side of the public road, which would have separated the new buildings from all the other buildings. The fact that there was a footpath crossing the farm which was taken for the erection of danger buildings was put forward as a complaint in the House, and it was only by the use of the greatest possible pressure that the War Office succeeded in inducing the House to hand the path over to them. The War Office, however, was bound to maintain the path, and he had no doubt that in consequence of this some of the danger buildings had had to be placed nearer together than would otherwise have been the case. He would urge the Government to see that the recommendations of the Committee which they adopted should be carried out at once. The Secretary for War had said that no undue delay had taken place, inasmuch as the Committee was not appointed until five weeks after the explosion, and no Report was made until two and a-half months after the last of the evidence was taken. He (Mr. Brodrick) did not think that at all events there had been any undue haste. He trusted that the result of this Debate would be to bring thoroughly home to the people of Waltham Abbey the fact that the Secretary for War took every precaution against storing large amounts of explosive material except where it could not be possibly avoided, and he congratulated his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Lockwood) upon having cleared up the matter in a way which must be satisfactory both to the relatives of the workmen and to the people of the locality.

said, he wished to congratulate the House on the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. As a resident near two large Government factories, he was able to speak as to the complaints which were made to the authorities from time to time, and the difficulty experienced in getting the War Office to take action. He felt that there was real urgency in connection with this question, and that, therefore, it was a little unfair of the Secretary of State for War to blame his hon. and gallant Friend for raising the Debate. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that at Waltham Abbey at the present time there existed alarm which almost amounted to a panic. The inhabitants felt that it was no use relying on the War Office, seeing that there had been four explosions within a comparatively recent period. It was to be hoped that some new Regulations would be adopted and greater precautions taken. Something more than Regulations on paper was needed. The Government manufactories of explosives should be subject to inspection by some authority outside the War Office, who would take care that the Regulations laid down by the War Office were carried out. Had the Secretary of State assured them that the Government factories, like private factories, would be placed under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, the inhabitants of Waltham Abbey would have been able to go to bed at night in greater security and comfort. He trusted that extra precautions would be taken to regulate night-work at the Government factory. Night operations were extremely dangerous, and to maintain an efficient inspection a large staff of Inspectors was essential. Then, as to compensating the victims of the explosions and their families, the Secretary of State had done everything that the law allowed him; but the law was faulty, and he (Captain Bowles) trusted that when the next inquiry was made the subject of pensions and compensation to the workmen would be investigated. The mischief was that at present a man was compensated according to the number of years he had worked in the factory. If he had worked a large number of years, it was probable that his widow would have reached an advanced age, and so much compensation was not needed. But where a young man was killed or maimed the compensation given was not adequate to support a widow and youthful family. The question was one which should at once be looked into.

said, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member for Epping was to blame for bringing this question forward. The raising of the question at the present time was justified, seeing that the Government had appropriated practically all the time, and the Debate on the Vote on Account was closured. There was only one remark made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Lock-wood) to which he took exception, and that was the remark to the effect that Lord Sandhurst should not have been put upon the Committee. Lord Sandhurst, who was an old personal friend of his own, had proved himself a most capable and impartial Chairman of the Committee. The extreme laxity shown in these factories led one to wonder whether in connection with the manufacture of cordite things were as they should be. The Committee said they had only inquired as to the gunpowder factory, and had not dealt with the other buildings. The Secretary of State had said that the new buildings were in charge of Sir F. Abel.

said, that what he had stated was that the best advice had been taken—that of Sir F. Abel, as well as that of Colonel Majendie.

said, he was informed, upon an authority in which he placed implicit trust, that cordite was being manufactured at Waltham Abbey in a very dangerous manner by what was known as the dry process. By this process impalpable dust was given off by the guncotton, which settled in all parts of the building and was liable to spontaneous combustion. From this dust, consequently, an explosion of a violent and destructive character might at any moment occur. Under the Mines Regulation Act particular Regulations were made that coal-dust should be kept thoroughly watered, and restrictive regulations were even more necessary in the case of such a highly explosive substance as guncotton. To enforce what he had said, only the other day an explosion took place in New York which undoubtedly was attributed to the spontaneous combustion of this guncotton powder, manufactured in a similar way to that manufactured at Waltham Abbey. In the case of these kinds of accidents on board Her Majesty's ships they had immediately a Court of Inquiry, and in many cases these were followed by a Court Martial. He could not see why similar regulations should not apply to Her Majesty's factories, which were watched over by Government officials. Some years ago a fearful explosion took place at Antwerp under similar conditions to these. The proprietor of the factory which was blown up was tried and imprisoned, and his manager was sent to prison for a year and a-half. He did not require anything of that sort, but he thought that the Regulations in force in the Army and Navy should be applied to Government factories; a Court of Inquiry should sit at once, and, if necessary, it should be followed by an inquiry similar to a Court Martial.

said, this was a question to which his attention had been called very much in the past few years, and he would like to touch upon one point that had not yet been alluded to in this Debate. No one, he thought, could blame his hon. and gallant Friend for bringing this matter forward. His hon. and gallant Friend had made a most temperate and excellent statement, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had met it by practically conceding all the points that had been urged, and, therefore, the time that had been occupied had not been lost. The right hon. Gentleman told them the Committee had two points to consider—one was the position and state of the buildings in which these accidents happened, and the other was the danger that might accrue to life and property in other Government establishments. There was one point that had not as yet been touched upon. If hon. Members would take the trouble to read the evidence contained in the Blue Book they would find that the cause of the accident was attributed to the fact that the factory at Waltham Abbey had been carried on lately at extremely high pressure. He did not say that all the accidents had happened on that account; but this was self-evident, that on many occasions, which could be proved, more men had been at work in the factory than would have been allowed in any private firm, and that with the aid of the electric light they had been allowed to work day and night. He was not here to ask the Government to give large employment to this or that private firm; but, having lived in the vicinity of gunpowder all his life, he happened to know these private manufactories for years past had had certain Government work to do, and to carry that out and to meet modern requirements these private firms had put up most expensive machinery, and had employed a number of skilled workmen. Now, however, these private firms were failing for want of work, and there was eminent danger of their being closed altogether. But the practical point, apart from any interest he might have in the matter, which he wished to put to the War Office, was this: if they were working these Government factories at a time of peace on such extremely high pressure, what would happen to them if, unfortunately, this country should be dragged suddenly into war, and when these private firms had been extinguished, their machinery sold, and their skilled workmen discharged? This was a very important matter; it was not a Departmental but a National question, and it was for that reason he had brought it before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

May I explain that all private firms which are able to supply us with the powder we want will have an opportunity of tendering for the supply.

, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to press upon the Government the necessity of taking every precaution against explosions, and to see that the rule against carrying loose matches was most rigorously enforced, as the most deplorable accidents had resulted from laxity in regard to this rule.

said, he wished to ask one question in reference to what fell a moment ago from the right hon. Gentleman, and it was this: would private firms be allowed to make the powder by the wet process, which they considered far safer than the dry process which the War Office insisted upon?

That is a question which I can hardly answer in this Debate.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 184.—(Division List, No. 61.)

Orders Of The Day

Finance Bill

—(No. 1900 COMMITTEE [Progress, 24th May.]

Second Night

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

said, the Amendment he had placed on the Paper to Clause 1 was, after "person," to insert "domiciled in the United Kingdom." It would, no doubt, have struck the Committee that as regarded this Estate Duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been only too anxious to lay his hands upon every kind of property, upon every person upon whom he could bring the duty to bear; the right hon. Gentleman laid his hands upon willed realty, settled property, personalty at home and abroad, on property of British subjects and of foreigners, and the only thing he excepted was real estate outside the United Kingdom. In all cases in which the right hon. Gentleman was able to touch property, either directly, because it was situate in this country, or indirectly, because it was the personalty of a British subject domiciled in this country—he drew no distinction whatever between the Englishman domiciled in this country and a colonist resident abroad and a foreigner domiciled and resident abroad—upon all of them the right hon. Gentleman laid the same heavy rate, and in the case of all of them he brought all the property into one great lump and charged this heavy duty upon the total aggregate. In this Amendment his object was to exempt realty of persons domiciled abroad, and his reason was that he thought every precaution should be taken to prevent foreign capital being driven out of this country. He feared that the heavy duties to be imposed would have the result of driving foreign personalty out of this country. There were two broad distinctions that could be drawn between the case of a man domiciled in this country and the case of a foreigner or colonist domiciled outside. In the first place, it was possible for him to remove his personalty and not to invest it in the United Kingdom, and if a person domiciled abroad chose to withdraw his capital their opportunity of taxing it would be lost. There was this further distinction in the case of a person domiciled abroad, whether he were living in one of the Colonies or was an actual foreigner living in a foreign State, if they put too heavy a duty upon his personalty in this country, the Government—whether it were the Government of a Colony or that of a foreign independent State, might retaliate by putting equally high Death Duties on Englishmen resident in such Colony or Foreign State. That, he thought, was a very serious danger, He was quite aware a broad distinction ought to be drawn between real and personal estate; he was aware that under the law as it stood the law was that they should tax real estate in this country; he did not deny that for a moment, and he admitted that his case with regard to real estate was not so strong as it was with regard to personalty, and he should be quite willing to see the Estate Duty placed upon realty, though he thought there was a good deal to be said in regard to that point. In the first place, the real estate of foreigners was not touched by the existing duties, but it was brought under the new duty and charged as portion of the whole aggregate property; therefore the foreigner was to be liable for a new duty upon his realty in this country, a duty which would be very heavy indeed. He was not so sure that it was a wise thing to discourage colonists from holding land in this country. For his part, he thought they should do everything they possibly could that was calculated to bind our colonists to the Mother Country. If they put this heavy duty upon the real estate of colonists in this country the result might be that they would alienate the affections of that colony from the Mother Country, and it certainly would not be an inducement to a colonist who had spent a large portion of his life in the colonies to come back to the Mother Country and invest his money in realty. When real property was at a wery low value he thought it was well to get purchasers from all parts of the world to take an interest in the land and give to it a value that it had not got at the present moment. He did not wish to see the demand for real property restricted or diminished. Then of course there was the other great danger he had referred to. He thought that more Englishmen held property abroad, in the colonies and foreign countries, than colonists or foreigners held in the Mother Country, and consequently there was the danger that if they taxed the foreigner too heavily they would retaliate upon the Englishmen holding property abroad.

There is no inducement to do so.

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the important manifesto issued from the agents of our colonics. [An hon. MEMBER: Not from the agents.] At all events, it represented colonial opinion, and they said that an Englishman was not taxed upon the property he held in the colonies, and if colonists domiciled in this country were to be taxed they would have every opportunity to retaliate. There was another reason why the realty of a foreigner should not be so heavily taxed as that of the Englishman domiciled in the United Kingdom, and it was this: The right hon. Gentleman had said that a great deal of this duty was raised for the purpose of maintaining the Navy. He (Mr. Hanbury) hardly thought the foreigner was interested to the same extent in maintaining the Navy as the Englishman. He denied that real estate was the thing most interested in maintaining the Navy, whether that real estate were in the hands of foreigners or Englishmen. The gainer in the maintenance of the Navy was commerce, and the disadvantage had fallen on real estate; therefore there were reasons why this tax should not fall so heavily upon real estate. But he did not propose to press the matter with regard to realty, the main object for which he should contend was maintaining the existing state of things which had been regarded as an international agreement for many years. Two great principles had hitherto been regarded in our taxation. The first was that taxation should be levied on real estate in accordance with the law of the laud in which that real estate was situate. That was one of the old maxims with regard to realty, but the maxim with regard to personalty was wholly different. Hitherto personalty in the possession of a person domiciled abroad had not been liable to the duties levied on personalty in this country. No Legacy Duty was paid on the willed personalty of a person domiciled abroad, and no Succession Duty was paid on settled personalty. They might be told that willed personalty did pay Probate Duty and also the new Estate Duty of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the person was domiciled in this country or outside. In that one case of Probate Duty, undoubtedly the personalty of a man domiciled abroad was put on the same footing as the personal willed property of a man domiciled in this country. There was a good and sound reason for that. The duty was paid in that case not because the man had this property—for in the shape of Legacy and Succession Duties he escaped the payment—but because he got certain advantages from the law in this country, and he was charged the Probate Duty because the State performed a duty towards him which forced him in return to pay the State. But now, for the first time, they were going to put the settled personalty and the real estate of the man domiciled abroad in exactly the same position that willed personalty had been hitherto. That was to say they were going to abrogate the rule which had hitherto said that practically he should not pay upon his personalty unless the State had performed some duty for which it could charge him. If they were going to impose this heavy exceptional duty on willed and settled personalty they would have to deal with the fact that whatever they might do the personalty, if a man died intestate, would be distributed not according to the law of this country, but according to the country in which he was domiciled. That was clearly a complication that would arise under this legislation. As Clause 3 stood at the present moment if they were going to levy this Estate Duty on personalty, settled and willed, of a man domiciled in this country, in order to arrive at what that estate duty ought to be they would have to take into the calculation the whole of that man's property abroad willed and settled. But how were they going to know anything about a foreigner's personalty abroad? They had no means of arriving at any information with regard to it. They had thus this position of things. Not only were they going to impose heavy duty upon the settled personalty of the foreigner, but supposing a foreigner had got £1,000,000 of personalty abroad, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got no right whatever to tax—the right hon. Gentleman was going to bring in the whole of that personalty into the aggregate amount, and levy the Estate Duty on that sum in addition to the small amount of personalty which the foreigner held in this country. A man might have £1,000,000 of personalty abroad and £100,000 worth in this country, and actually in the case of a foreigner that Estate Duty would be levied on £1,100,000. That was legitimate in the case of a man domiciled in this country, but in the case of a foreigner they had no right to tax his personalty abroad. The right hon. Gentleman was actually saying by this Bill: "Although I am not entitled to tax his personalty abroad I will bring it into the aggregate, and if I cannot tax it abroad I will calculate it for the Estate Duty at Home, and he shall pay not only on the £100,000 which I can tax, but also on the £1,000,000 which I cannot' tax." He would ask the right hon. Gentleman was it. wise as a matter of policy to drive foreign capital from their shores in this way? There was little enough of capital in this country at the present time, and he thought the more they encouraged foreign capital here the better it would be. It would be a most foolish thing, if by any heavy Death Duties they were to drive capital out of the country. Already their Death Duties were the highest in the world; and now in addition to making them higher they were going to make them more complicated by the proposals to which he had adverted, and by charging a lump sum dependent on the value of the estate varying with the amount a man died possessed of, and not with the amount of the legacy. A foreigner would be an idiot indeed if he invested one penny of his money in this country if these proposals became law. They could tax the personalty of a man domiciled in this country, hut they could not apply the same principle to those not domiciled in this country, and for this reason: A man domiciled here could not retaliate, but a man with a foreign domicile was cither a colonist or a foreigner, and his country might retaliate and impose heavy duties in consequence of the heavy duties this country had imposed upon him and his fellow-subjects. What would be the effect of this? Take the case of the hon. Member for Keighley, who had a large amount of personalty invested abroad. What would happen in his case? He would be taxed twice over for that personalty. Even if the duties were not raised he would pay to the taxation of the country in which his mills were situated, and then he would pay this heavy additional duty as being a man domiciled in this country and having personalty abroad. He did not think that was an equitable principle upon which to proceed. He did not go the length of saying that all foreign personalty or realty ought to be exempt, because the case of realty was not so strong as personalty; but be thought he had made out a case for exempting foreign personalty mainly on the ground that they did not want to drive foreign capital out of this country by an increase of the Death Duties, and in the case of Englishmen domiciled in this country who had works or personalty abroad they did not want them retaliated upon and additional duties placed upon them; so that, not only would they have to pay the heavy duties of the country in which the works were situated, but also these additional duties which would be, for the first time, levied upon them as subjects of this country. What he asked was that they should leave the law with regard to foreigners exactly as it stood at the present moment, and he did soon the ground that he did not want to see foreign capital driven out of this country. Considering that their Death Duties were the highest in the world, he asked that they should not so enormously add to them to such an extent as to prevent foreign capital being invested in this country. Again, he would point out that there would be a great temptation to the foreigner to evade the duty, and his opportunities for doing so must naturally be greater than those of men domiciled in this country. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as a matter of fact, even the small Probate Duty on the personalty of persons domiciled out of the country was not already evaded? They knew that there were numbers of foreigners—and foreigners in Royal positions, who, looking to this country as about the safest place to invest money, and the possibility of revolutions in their own country, sent a great deal of capital here. Had the Probate Duty touched these men hitherto? He very much doubted if even the small Probate Duty levied on the personalty of foreigners domiciled outside this country had hitherto been paid to any great extent. He feared that in the future there would be much greater risk of one of two things happening: either the personalty would not be sent over for investment in this country, or if sent by foreigners the duty upon it would be evaded. For these two reasons he begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "person," to insert the words "domiciled in the United Kingdom."—( Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he could not help thinking that the hon. Member had moved his Amendment in entire ignorance of the present law on this matter. At present the whole of the personal property in this country held by persons domiciled abroad was subject to and did pay Probate Duty.

Settled personalty?

said, his statement referred to personal property as a rule. Probate Duty, he repeated, was a duty payable and paid upon administration in respect of personal property in this country belonging to the deceased wherever domiciled. That was the general rule, and the personal property of everybody, whether domiciled here or abroad, was subject to Probate Duty and did pay it.

What about settled personalty?

asked the hon. Member to allow him to state the general proposition. Settled personalty, as everybody knew, because of the character of the settlement, did not pay Probate Duty Settled property did not pay Probate Duty for the technical reason that, under the settlement, it could not come under the jurisdiction of the Probate Court, and it was upon that ground, and that ground alone, that it did not pay Probate Duty.

"Probate is not granted in respect of the estates generally, but in respect of such parts as are at the testator's death within the jurisdiction of the spiritual judge by whom it is granted."

It was upon that technical ground that property under settlement did not pay Probate. It was not the least in the world on the ground of domicile, for wherever a man was domiciled he now paid the Probate Duty. The consequence of passing the Amendment would be the loss of hundreds of the thousands of pounds which were now paid by persons domiciled abroad under Probate Duty and Estate Duty. [Mr. HANBURY interrupted with some observation.] They were now in Committee, and if the hon. Member wanted to contradict him, he would have an opportunity of doing so hereafter, but he had a right to make a statement on this subject without being exposed to continued interruption. He did not interrupt the hon. Member, though, in his opinion, every sentence he uttered was founded in error, both in law and in fact. That was the general proposition, and there was no rule of exemption in respect of domicile upon that ground. He had stated the general proposition that personalty belonging to persons domiciled outside the United Kingdom now paid Probate to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds. There was a difference with regard to real property, which was charged under the law of the country in which that real property was situated. The hon. Member had contended that the proposals of the Government would have the effect of driving capital out of the country. At the present moment personalty belonging to persons domiciled abroad paid 4 per cent. Probate Duty. What was the proposition of the hon. Member? He would take real property first. The hon. Member said that great complaints were made of the high taxation of realty in this country, and he asked that because a foreign gentleman or an Englishman chose to live abroad and owned an estate here he should not be asked to pay any taxes upon the realty, whilst the English gentleman residing here was to pay such taxes. Would such a state of things be tolerated for a moment, as that any foreigner who chose to bring his capital to this country should be at an advantage compared with English capitalists? The proposition was absurd, and it was hardly possible to treat arguments of this kind seriously. Probate Duty was now put upon personalty, and was not put upon settled personalty, and that was one of the very evils the Government proposed to remedy. If free personalty was to be charged, then settled personalty ought also to be liable to this tax; and if both were liable, then real property ought to be. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's argument about driving capital abroad was absurd. The Amendment struck not only at the root of the proposal in the clause, but against taxation on all property. If carried it would be absolutely ruinous to the existing sources of the Revenue of the country. He was sure his predecessor in the Office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer— whom he saw opposite—would not be a party to the depletion of the Revenue, or to striking a blow at the resources of the country. The Amendment, if carried into effect, would deplete by hundreds of thousands of pounds the resources already at the command of the Government; and, of course, they could not think of accepting it.

said, he should not have intervened —for he did not know that he was altogether disposed to support the Amendment—if he had not thought that if a silent vote was given many observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be misunderstood. In his anxiety to defend himself against the Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to go a great deal too far, and to leave out of view some of the very real dangers pointed out by the hon. Member for Preston. It was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, that at this moment the Probate Duty was payable independently of the domicile of the deceased. But why was that? It was because Probate Duty was not so much a tax in the proper sense of the word as a payment in exchange for a service rendered. What the State gave in exchange for Probate Duty was an active title to in gather the estate which the executor otherwise would not have; and that was the distinction between settled and unsettled property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that Legacy and Succession Duty were payable on really but not on personalty where the deceased was domiciled abroad. Again, he asked, why? The answer was because that was really a tax, and in accordance with the view which had always prevailed in the law that moveables followed the person, it was not right to put a tax on moveables in the estate of a person—that was to say a foreigner— domiciled abroad. On the other hand, if a foreigner chose to buy real property in England, he in one sense became an Englishman, and it was out of the question to say that an Englishman should pay a tax on real property, but that if a foreigner came and held it he should be exempt. That was because it was a proper tax. That being the state of the law at present, what did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to do? Of course, here they were bound to take the Bill as it stood—to take the whole scheme as it would stand if passed into law. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was this: he wished—and they all admitted that it was a very admirable wish—to reduce the number of Estate Duties and to crush into the Estate Duty the three duties previously known as Probate Duty, Estate Duty, and Account Duty. They should remember what happened with the Probate Duty at present. Although the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that Probate Duty did not depend on domicile, yet he forgot the second proposition— that the incidence of the Probate Duty did depend on the local situation of the estate. At present Probate Duty was only paid on property which fell within the letters of administration so that the domiciled foreigner, though he had to pay a return for the active title which the State gave him, did not pay a sou for any property he had at home. In order to mass together the three duties, the right hon. Gentleman proposed in Section 1 that the Estate Duty should be charged upon the principal value of all property which passed, and in Section 3 he again spoke of all property passing. The dangers the hon. Member foreshadowed here were real and not imaginary. If the Bill passed in its present form it would impose on the foreigner a duty which he had never paid before, and which it was absolutely impossible to defend on any ground of equity or common-sense. He also agreed with his hon. Friend that the imposition of these duties would be followed by the real and practical danger of driving capital out of the country. He was not going to repeat the hon. Member's argument, but he ventured to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his anxiety to combat the hon. Member, really did not take note of that which was the true weight of the hon. Member's speech, and did not notice these dangers at all. The right hon. Gentleman had rather attacked the hon. Member for wishing to do that which he (Mr. Graham-Murray) was sure he did not wish to do. The right hon. Gentleman represented that the hon. Member wanted the foreigner to be exempted from all payment in regard to real property. His hon. Friend did not wish to do anything of the kind. He only wished that duty should be levied on the property for which the State here did something. Probably effect would be best given to these cogent views when the question of aggregation came before the Committee, when a judiciously-worded Amendment would avoid all the dangers which had been pointed out without running into the extreme with which alone the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt in his speech.

said, he was not surprised that his hon. Friend had moved the Amendment. No doubt, like a great many of them, the right hon. Gentleman had been puzzled to know exactly what was meant by this clause. But it was very doubtful whether what the hon. Member wanted would be met by the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now assured the Committee that the duty which he intended to impose was a Probate Duty; but, as far as anyone could understand, the duty proposed in the Bill was not a Probate Duty at all. It was going to include the duty which had hitherto been charged as Probate, but in effect it would be a sort of Succession or Legacy Duty, that was to say, to be paid by the beneficiaries. As the clause stood, it would levy a duty on property which had never yet been liable, and which ought not to be liable, to Probate Duty, and in respect of which it could not be levied—he meant real property situated abroad. Probate Duty had always been levied in this country on one set of property and on no more. You see that it is necessary to obtain the appointment of an executor or administrator, for and upon that Probate Duty was paid. The moment the two duties were mixed up together, however, they were plunged into a sea of difficulties. If Clause 2 were meant to be an inclusive definition, it would get rid of the difficulty; but there was no assurance that that was so.

I should have thought a short answer would have been given to my hon. and learned Friend. I do not think the Amendment should be supported at this point, but it raises some very important questions. The whole question of Death Duties on properties situated in one country and belonging to persons domiciled in another, or vice versa, is well deserving of attention. The question has frequently puzzled the Inland Revenue Department; the colonies have taken the greatest interest in it; and the Amendment ought not to be brushed aside as a frivolous Amendment to which no attention ought to be paid. The Committee must see that if you put too high a tax on foreign capital temporarily in this country the property belonging to a person domiciled abroad—that capital will be withdrawn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he presumed that persons in this country would not desire that capital belonging to foreigners should be retained in this country. But generally the feeling on both sides of the House will be that as little difficulty as possible should be placed upon the ebb and flow of capital from one country to another. One point the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to note is of great importance. He pointed out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston would abolish even the existing Probate Duty by his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman contests that point. But if he were right the Amendment could not be supported. I admit that in the frankest manner. Although the present 4 per cent. duty on foreign property may not be excessive, it is a very different question when as much as 8 per cent. is concerned, especially if there are high duties in the other country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there was a 10 per cent. Death Duty in the Colonies. A person dying in the colonies with property in this country might, therefore, have to pay 18 per cent. That would make it very difficult for capital to be held in the two countries. The increase of the duty is a material fact in the case.

The man must be a millionaire for those figures to be correct. It is always the millionaire.

I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would argue these questions without importing prejudice. It is not the interest of the millionaire which is in question. I am arguing in a business-like way. I am pointing out that it is the interposition of difficulties which may prevent capital flowing between the two countries, and whether a man has a million or a quarter of a million the difficulty will arise, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to take it into account. Take the case of the millionaire. Suppose he had £800,000 in the colonies and £200,000 in this country. Such a man dare not keep the £200,000 here as he grows old, because it would involve him in a duty on a million. That is a point with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt. Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that in such cases the system of aggregation is exaggerative, and that it cannot hold water in any practical discussion? It will disturb the relations of capital between two countries. However scoffingly the right hon. Gentleman may treat the Amendment, that is a point which deserves an answer. The enormous increase of the duty, the extension of it to settled property, and the introduction of the element of aggregation are all points on which it is important to appreciate the novelty which this Budget will produce. We are not merely engaged in a controversy between the two sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman will see that a matter so thoroughly affecting the colonies was deserving of serious attention. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend has been right in raising this question of domicile, though there may be more convenient forms of giving effect to the object of the Amendment.

The fundamental reason why we object to this Amendment is because, in our opinion, capital, whether personalty or realty, should be charged on equal terms in this country to the native and domiciled people of the country and to those who hold property here and are domiciled else where. Any other distinction would be intolerably unjust. Would English capitalists endure that foreigners should bring their capital here and avoid the taxation to which English capital is subjected? He did not see present the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield; but the proposal was enough to make every hair on his head stand on end. It would involve the marking of every investment and every sovereign as foreign property that is not to be liable to the same taxation as English capital. It is impossible to entertain such an idea seriously. I ask the Committee to conceive the position of a Frenchman establishing a mill in Manchester, and it being asked that he should pay a lower rate of taxation than an Englishman with another mill next door. It is impossible to argue this question, because the contention is absurd on the face of it. The hon. Member said that foreigners had not the same interest in the naval defence of the country. That is the ground on which the foreigner is asked to pay at a lower rate than the Englishman.

I said it applied to realty.

Well, take it as applying to realty, the foreigner, therefore, who holds landed estate in England is not to pay the same taxation as the English gentleman because he has not the same interest in the safety of the country. That is the argument laid before the House of Commons. I really must be excused from treating it seriously. I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to place it before another tribunal as well, and they will probably find that the same answer will be given as the House of Commons will give to it this evening.

The right hon. Gentleman ought to attempt to understand the views of the Opposition, and to deal with the serious points that have been raised. The right hon. Gentleman's favourite method of argument—it is very clear, and I compliment him upon it— is to seize on one weak point of an adversary's case, and to work it to death, giving the "go-by" to the other points of the case.

The weak point is the Amendment.

There may be some defect in the wording of the Amendment, but I urge that the serious portion of the argument must be dealt with, and that is the question of aggregation. The right hon. Gentleman says the foreigner is to stand precisely on the same footing as the native of this country; and then, in his usual manner, he says that another tribunal may decide upon the issue. I wish to argue the question in the spirit of Committee, and not in the spirit of Party contest.

I have argued the question on the wording of the Amendment as it stands, and that is the proper business of the Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman admits that the Amendment cannot be sustained let the Committee get rid of it.

It is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest improvements in the Amendment with a view to obtain an issue out of what may be a real difficulty. There are sufficient difficulties connected with this matter to make that course very desirable. The right hon. Gentleman makes a kind of appeal to the country. He says—"See the benefit that is proposed to be given to the foreigner." Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that when a foreigner leaves his property in the shape of legacies it is placed on a different footing from the property of those who are domiciled in this country? The argument of the right hon. Gentleman about the foreigner is ridiculous. Surely the colonists deserve some consideration in the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the archives of the Treasury he will see that the question of the Death Duties as it affects foreigners has led to difficulties. There is a serious question involved in this Amendment, and it deserves serious consideration.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, would best assist the Committee if with his knowledge of the subject he would not cast his shield of protection over unfortunate Amendments of this kind, and bring forward arguments which did not apply to this question, but might apply to something else. The point of aggregation arose on Clause 3, not on the present clause. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to exempt the foreigner from the costs of aggregation, let him put down an Amendment to Clause 3. The point they had to decide in connection with Clause 1 was, who were the persons to be subjected to the proposed duties. He confessed that having listened a good many times to hon. Gentlemen opposite dwelling on the unfortunate character of recent English legislation which, they said, was all in favour of foreigners as against the natives of this country, he was amused to find that the first Amendment brought forward on this Bill was to exempt the foreigner from the duties to be levied on natives holding properly in this country. Even the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Amendment was not good. Then why should not the right hon. Gentleman advise his hon. Friend to withdraw it and bring it forward in another shape. What was the good of discussing an Amendment which did not apply to the present case, and which, if carried into effect, would have results he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not be in favour of any more than anyone else? The sooner they left this Amendment and went to one that could be supported by argument, the better it would be in the interest of the good name of the House.

said, he quite understood why the hon. Member for Eccles dismissed the Amendment in so airy a way. The hon. Member entirely failed to understand the Amendment, or the clause it proposed to amend. More time would be saved if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of going into heavy hysterics, would read the first clause and see how pertinent the Amendment was to it. This clause taxed everybody in respect of every piece of his property all the world over. It was a case of Cæsar Augustus issuing a decree that the world should be taxed. Caesar Augustus sitting in Downing Street had framed this first clause, which was a modern instance of the decree of the ancient autocrat and ruler. It was true by the time Caesar had got to the end of Clause 2 some intelligent person, probably from the Legacy Duty Office, recommended him to put a little water into his wine, and to modify his decree. But the Committee were now dealing with Clause 1, in which Caesar Augustus decrees that every person, of the hundreds of millions of persons in the world, should pay duty on his property, whether that property was in the United Kingdom or in China. Surely it was perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding the views of the hon. Member for Eccles, that they should introduce some limitation into the clause before they passed from it.

English Acts of Parliament do not run in China at present.

The Legacy Duty does.

said, his complaint against the clause was that it assumed to run in China, Tartary, and even in Russia. He was only an humble layman, but he submitted that the true principle upon which the taxation of property passing by death proceeded was that when the property was in this country, actually or constructively, then they had a right to impose a tax upon it. But this clause threw a tax on the whole habitable world. There was absolutely no limit whatever, and that being so, it was highly proper that this Amendment should be entertained, and that the Committee should consider the desirability of restricting the scope of the clause to persons domiciled in the United Kingdom. He defied even the hon. Member for Eccles to find any limit to the application of the tax.

It is in Clause 2.

said, they were not now on Clause 2. They were dealing with Clause 1, and he would confine himself, as he was bound to do, to Clause 1. The words of the first Legacy Duties Act were as extremely? wide as the words used in this Bill. But the Law Courts laid down that there was a necessary limit to the operation of the Act, and that was that it was limited to "the sphere of the enactment"—to use the words of the Judge—or to persons domiciled in this country. Whatever Act they passed it would, necessarily, be restricted to this sphere, and in this case the sphere must be such property as was found in the country.

said, that before withdrawing the Amendment, on the ground that it went too far as including realty as well as personalty, he desired to say that in so far as personalty was concerned he had not heard one single argument against it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a platform oration about drawing distinctions between foreigners and Englishmen. It was all perfectly absurd, because it was the law of the land at the present moment that no Legacy Duty whatever was charged upon the personalty of foreigners, although it was charged on the personalty of persons domiciled in this country. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman to forego his platform oratory in the House, if he desired his Bill to make more progress. The right hon. Gentleman asked for courtesy; but the right hon. Gentleman should give to the Opposition at least a little of the courtesy he expected from them. It was for the Leader of the House to set the example. He moved the Amendment because he did not want to see capital driven out of the country. It was in the interest of the country and not in the interest of the foreigners he made the proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that the Amendment, if carried, would not relieve all taxation from the shoulders of the foreigner.

said, he desired to protest against the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Eccles that aggregation was not included in the clause. The clause was based on aggregation, and aggregation alone. Aggregation was the life and soul of the clause. If the statement were made by any other Member of the House he would not have taken any notice of it. But the hon. Member occupied a semi-official position, as one of the Deputy Chairmen of the House, and great weight was on that account attached to his statements. Another matter he would like to refer to was the action of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dragging in the millionaire. Really, there was no necessity to refer to the millionaire at all. The man with £100,000 paid 6 per cent., and that case was good enough for argument without going to the millionaire who paid 8 per cent.

Question put, and negatived.

moved an Amend-meet to leave out in 16 the words "commencement of this Part" and insert "passing." If the Bill stood as at present its effect would be retrospective. But that could not have been the intention of the right hon. Gentleman when the Bill was drawn up. This part of the Bill would come into operation on the 31st of May. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget he undoubtedly believed that this Bill would become law by the 1st of June, and in that case the date of the 31st of May for the measure to come into operation would have been reasonable enough. Now, however, it was impossible that the measure could become law by the 1st of June, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman ought to fix some day for the Bill to come into operation that would prevent its being of a retrospective character. It was for that reason he moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "commencement of this Part," and insert the word "passing."—( Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, that the proper time to settle this matter would be upon Clause 20. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment, but that the matter might be left over for discussion upon the subsequent clause.

said, that having a distinct assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be full opportunity later on for consideration of this point he thought it might be convenient to postpone the Amendment. He must, bow-ever, point out that the question was a most important one, involving entirely different conditions from those which at present prevailed. It would, of course, affect a large number of existing wills.

said, he should like to understand distinctly what would be the date at which the Bill would come into operation. The date was important, because he understood that this Estate Duty represented £50,000 a day. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to tell them that the date named would be one after the passing of the Act. If the Bill applied retrospectively he was afraid a great deal of hardship would be inflicted.

said, the object with which he brought forward the Amendment was to avoid the cost that would be placed upon the small estates if this tax were made retrospective. He was willing to postpone the Amendment until Clause 20 was reached; but he thought he ought to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some assurance that the Act would not be retrospective, and that opportunity should be given for proper discussion upon Clause 20. He really hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him some assurance that the Act would not be made retrospective, in which case he would be very glad to withdraw his Amendment. Unless he received that assurance he should certainly go to a Division.

With regard to the latter matter, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be under any apprehension. I have read this morning, in a leading Conservative organ, that in consequence of the number of Amendments on the Paper, it is feared that the Estate Duty section of the Bill will not be disposed of before the end of this week. I think that is a rather reassuring statement. With regard to the other point I do not think it ought to be pressed now, but that it should be reserved for the House itself to fix the date when the proper opportunity arises.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the Amendment he had thought of moving was a very small one, framed in the interests of accuracy. The word used in the Bill was "levied," and he thought the proper word to be used was "charged." He had looked at a good many Acts and found that this was the general rule. It was not, however, a matter of first-class importance, although he submitted the suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, the word was used in both senses.

said, he did not understand the hon. Member to move.

No, Sir; I will not move the Amendment.

proposed to omit the words providing that the Estate Duty should be levied on "the principal value of" all property. He said that these words "principal value" appeared to him to raise the whole question of the new Estate Duty at once. Certainly the House was entitled to fuller information upon the matter. No one, not even a solicitor, understood the Bill as it stood. In his opinion, the Death Duties ought to have been dealt with in a separate Bill, and very carefully considered. The House would, no doubt, remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had himself said that a Bill of so much magnitude was worthy of a whole Session's deliberation. It seemed to him that under the provisions of this Bill the Government were attempting to bring about a financial revolution (the clauses of the measure being very vaguely drafted) in order to carry out distinct operations. The first of these objects was the assimilation of personalty and realty, although every Member of the House must know that they were essentially different. The second was a graduated scale of assessment, which increased rapidly from £100 to £100,000, and from 1 per cent. to 6 per cent., but only in regard to 1 per cent. between £100,000 and £500,000, with another half per cent. in the case of properties over the value of £1,000,000. This taxation ought to be spread more gradually at first and continued gradually up to 8 per cent. in order that it might be founded upon a fair principle. The arrangement for the aggregation of the dead man's property so as to make small legatees pay the same as the successors to princely fortunes derived from the aggregate estate was most unfair. An aggregation of the kind suggested must be either very hard upon all the smaller beneficiaries under a will or a gross injustice to the residuary legatee.

I rise to Order. This clause has nothing to do with aggregation. If there was no proposal for aggregation at all this clause would stand just as it is. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Mellor, that any discussion upon aggregation in respect of this clause is entirely out of Order.

Does not the word "all" imply aggregation?

I do not think that the question of aggregation is out of Order upon this clause.

, continuing, said, that the proposal of the Government amounted to an attempt to mortgage the effects of a living person in anticipation of his death, and was in fact a legislative post obit. It would impose a penalty upon all thrift and good management, and was in his view the most unfair, unjust, and indefensible provision in the Budget.

I rise to Order. Is not the question before the House that the word "levied" stand part of the Bill?

No, that matter has been disposed of.

, proceeding, said, that the tax was a charge upon a class of property which ought not to be so burdened. Under one of the clauses of the Bill it was proposed that all the property for assessment should be aggregated, and that all small legatees should have to pay the same tax as those who came into a princely fortune. That was a proposal for legislation of a hotch-potch kind. The "prospective value" which was included in the clause would fall entirely on private owners of property. Those who had laid out large sums on their estates would get no deduction from the Death Duty unless the money had been raised by mortgage on the property. Where urban property was held by trustees and companies nothing would be paid; therefore, private owners would be at a great disadvantage in the management of their estates. In the case of agricultural laud, how was the principal value to be assessed? Much agricultural land could not be sold readily, and a. great many details in the assessment would take a long time to value. What would become of the smaller legatees during that period of delay? Then the provisions affecting expectations in relation to principal value were most unfair. In one part of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman provided that nothing was to be allowed to those who came into property until everything was settled. In some counties rents would not be received for six months afterwards. The question was whether it was possible to assimilate the Death Duties upon realty and personalty. He objected strongly to the proposal that every kind of property should be brought into hotch-pot for the purposes of taxation.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the words "the principal value of."—( Mr. Heneage.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause."

Sir, a great part of the hon. Member's speech has no relation to the question. I have already pointed out, and will point out again, that aggregation is one of the chief reforms which the Government contemplate. Hitherto injustice has been inflicted under the Death Duties because certain kinds of property have been charged on their principal value whilst other kinds have been charged on very much less than the principal value. There are three principles of reform which the Government wish to establish —equalisation, aggregation, and graduation. Equalisation, to which I will confine my remarks at this point, can be arrived at by taking a common measure, that measure being principal value. There are various methods of finding the principal value, and I do not wish at this particular point of our proceedings to decide definitely how it is to be arrived at. The clause under consideration is simply a statement of the general principle of the Bill, and it. would be improper to ingraft upon it limitations which would be more in place in subsequent clauses. The sixth clause, Sub-section 5, proposes to enact

"that the value of the property for the purpose of Estate Duty shall be ascertained by the Commissioners in such manner and by such means as they think fit."

and it then provides for an appeal to the High Court by persons who think themselves aggrieved. I can quite understand that many hon. Gentlemen may not be satisfied with this precise mode of ascertaining the value of property, but I venture to suggest that they ought to wait until that clause is reached before proposing alternative methods, and not to attempt to introduce them in Clause 1. Some people wish that the duty should be levied upon the annual value of property instead of the principal value. Annual value may be a proper element in the consideration of the value of land; but that cannot be said in the case of other classes of property, where the annual value is no doubt very small, but which, if sold, would produce an enormous sum. I trust that hon. Members will once and for all grasp the fact that a great injustice is done to the community at large by not assessing the principal value of this class of property for the purposes of taxation merely because its present annual value was very inconsiderable. Take, for example, the Savernake Estate, a property that has no annual value at all, and yet is of enormous value when placed upon the market. Then there is the ease of the Maplin Sands, lately purchased by the Government for £170,000. They are valueless so far as any annual yield is concerned, because twice in a day they are covered by the sea, but they have a selling value. This is also especially true in the case of building laud around growing towns. Is it fair that the inhabitants of those towns should continue to pay high rates for the purpose of effecting improvements which directly increase the value of the land in the immediate neighbourhood, while the owners of the land who directly reap the benefit are allowed to go scot-free? The very principle and element of the Bill is that property of this class shall no longer escape paying its proportionate share of taxation, and that the millionaire in future shall contribute in the same way as other people to the revenue of the country. I assure the Committee that having said that, I am open to consider what are the proper methods in reference to each class of property by which to arrive at a fair valuation for the purposes of taxation. Hon. Gentlemen need not frighten themselves that the proposed method for the valuation of land by the State will be an unfair one. I have lately had an opportunity of asking one of the most experienced gentlemen in London in valuing property what method he adopts, and he replied that the principle he proceeded upon when estimating what would be a fair value of any work of art was not how much it would probably sell for at Christie's, but what sum be would, were he a dealer, give for it, expecting to sell it again at a reasonable profit. That appears to me to be a fair and proper line of argument to apply to the valuing of land for the purposes of taxation, and one likely to work out far more equitably than taking as the standard of valuation so many years' purchase. Any fixed rule, I believe, would be found in practice to be unfair, and likely to be too low when applied to rising properties, and too high when applied to depreciating properties. That would be especially the case when the question of ground-rents had to be considered, which are often sold at quite a fancy figure. In one case which I recently saw reported in the newspapers a ground-rent with a comparatively short period to run had been sold by auction at Tokenhouse Yard at a sum representing 90 years' purchase. I trust that hon. Members will not discuss this question further until Clause 6 is reached. That clause will directly raise this point. I feel sure that the method now proposed to be employed in making the valuation is one that will work out with fairness to all parties. Everybody knows the difficulty, but I will not go into the details now. The question is whether the principal value is to be taken, and there is no doubt that hon. Members opposite object to that principle of the Bill; but I cannot accept the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman, in the speech he has just delivered, has violated the rule which he has himself laid down with regard to the speech of my right hon. Friend opposite. I shall not touch now on the disputed point, which the right hon. Gentleman says will more properly arise when we come to deal with Clause 6, as to the mode of ascertaining the value; but, though that question is not raised by the Amendment, there are two questions raised by it of great importance, to one of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid no attention at all, as far as I can see. As I understand, the existing system of dealing with agricultural lauded estate is that the Death Duty, whatever it may be, is levied on the life interest of the man who succeeds. Under this clause henceforth the tax would be estimated, not on the life interest, but upon the capital value of the property to which he succeeds. That is an enormous change, but the right hon. Gentleman did not allude to it.

I beg pardon. I believe that I did refer to it. If not, it was an unintentional omission. I think I stated that it would be unjust to deal with the life interest only.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the phrase "life interest." But whether he did or not, that is an arguable point. It is a case which deserves arguing, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got to argue it. Take the case of an ordinarily landed estate, rack-rented, belonging to the eldest of four brothers, all advanced in life. It is hard to tell how death would strike them, but it would probably strike them in accordance with their age. That property would be taxed at the full rate three or four times in 10 years at brief intervals. Is that a just method of dealing with the Death Duties? I think not. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think this is a fair system as regards the person succeeding, and he justifies the present action of the Government. This Probate Duty had a very different origin. It was originally nothing more than a Stamp Duty. But when you are going to raise it into a system of extorting money from property owners—when you are making it a complement to the Income Tax, it becomes a gross injustice if you are to levy it upon corpus or upon the whole value of the land three times in 10 years. In another case, where a healthy young man succeeds, the estate might go for 70 years without a farthing being extracted from it. This is an alteration in the law which requires defending. I come to the next point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer avows that it is his great object in making this alteration to get hold of those properties which are of very small annual value and large capital value, especially those great building estates in which there is very great reversionary value. In my judgment, it is perfectly just that that kind of property should pay its full quota to the burdens of the State. I do not say a word for relieving that or any other land of property from fair taxation. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this particular method of dealing with this particular kind of property will inflict a very great hardship, not on the millionaires, who are the bugbears of the right hon. Gentleman, but on the enormous class of small owners who own, perhaps, the great mass of property in reversionary values in this country. Why do I say that this kind of tax will be very hard? Supposing a man has cottages which bring him in £.50 a year. The property has a large reversionary value, but at present it only brings in a trifling ground-rent. Under the new system what will happen? If he dies, his heirs will immediately find themselves liable to a payment based not upon the £50 annual value, but estimated on the very large capital value, which is arrived at by considering the reversionary rent of the property as distinguished from its actual rent. How is the man who owned that property to pay the tax? He cannot raise it in the market by way of mortgage, and he will be driven compulsorily to sell. I do not mean to say that you cannot now and then raise money on mortgage of a reversionary value, but, broadly speaking, money is raised on the annual value of property. The man, therefore, who has to raise a very large sum, which he would have to raise in the supposed case I have laid before the Committee, could not borrow it upon the property, or upon the rent, or upon the capital value, because it is not easy to borrow upon capital value, and, consequently, you will drive this particular kind of investor to a compulsory sale of some of his cottages. In my opinion, that introduces quite a new principle into our taxation. I do not believe that Parliament up to this time has ever inflicted a tax on any part of the community which had to be liquidated from the thing to be taxed; hitherto, broadly speaking, we have always looked to what is actually got from the property. There may be exceptions in the cases of pictures and other works of art; but, broadly speaking, the taxation of this country has been raised in a form which does not require the taxed individual to sell the property for which he is taxed. That principle, if you carry this clause, you will have for ever abrogated. The small owner who cannot borrow will find himself driven to the expedient of a forced sale of his property—an expedient to which you have never yet driven anybody on whom you have endeavoured to levy taxes. It is perfectly true that it is necessary that these reversionary values should bear their full share of the burdens of taxation, but they ought to meet them when the reversion falls in. It is not what a man is going to get that you ought to tax, but what a man has got. When the reversions fall in you might put a retrospective tax upon them which would make them pay their full share of taxation. What you do is to ask a man to pay, not upon what he gets, but upon a speculative value, for that is what it is. An hon. Member who interrupted me just now seemed to suppose that I was going to defend the immunity from taxation of this particular kind of property. I do not wish to defend it, and think there ought to be no such immunity; but I say that this particular method of catching this property is unjust to the owner, and what you ought to aim at is some kind of taxation which, directly a man realises the reversionary value, would extract from the property the whole of the amount that, was due to the State upon the reversion reaching its fruition. Now, Mr. Mellor, I have ventured to lay before the Committee two objections to this method of taxation. The first objection is that it inflicts upon real property the unjust system which now applies to personalty. I think you ought to equalise personalty and realty by applying to personalty the just system which now applies to realty. My second objection is that you are taxing these reversionary properties, not at the time when they ought to bear the taxation— namely, when the reversion comes to fruition, but at a time when the owner probably cannot raise the money necessary for the payment of the taxation, and you are consequently driving him into a forced sale, thus possibly inflicting considerable hardship upon him. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will seriously consider before they assent to a clause the consequences of which may be so serious to all holders of property, whether real or personal.

said, the first objection of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down to the proposal of the Government was that it altered the principle on which the duties were levied. In one sense he thought they were all agreed that the principle must be altered. He took it that they were agreed that real and personal property ought to be assimilated.

Of course, if you properly regulate local forms of taxation.

said, he had assumed that another point they were agreed upon was that this was a Bill to raise revenue and not to decrease it, and therefore, as practical people, seeing that they really could not depreciate personalty to the level of realty, they must raise realty to the level of personalty. He took the principle of the Bill to be to impose a duty upon valuation at death. That was not a new principle, although the present proposal was new in its comprehensiveness. The Probate Duty did it, the Account Duty had done it in substance, and the principle was familiar to lawyers in various other forms. All this Bill proposed to do was to make the whole system logical, and this was proposed to be done on the basis that the State had a right to interfere with the devolution of property. The State might refuse to recognise any particular form of devolution, and might decline to let the owner dispose of his property freely. In France the owner of property could not leave it freely, whilst in Scotland he was compelled by law to leave one-third of his personalty to his widow and two-thirds to his children.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken as to the Scotch law. One-third of a man's property in such a case was entirely at his disposition.

said, he would accept the correction, which did not interfere with his point, which was that a large part of a man's property in Scotland was not at his own disposition. That being so, he would read what he thought was a description of the right theory of the Death Duties—

"The whole theory of the Death Duties is that the State claims a share in all property passing on death. If I may use a phrase of legitimate exaggeration, a portion of the Death Duty is practically evaded by settlements. From my point of view every settlement, if not a fraud upon the Death Duty, at all events make a serious inroad upon what I may term the rights of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. …Settlements it is true pay a small duty, but nothing as compared with the total to the State which the property comprised in them escapes. I do not feel sure that equity and analog}' do not require that a higher duty should be put upon settlements to compensate for the heavy loss to Death Duties which they bring about."

He did not know whether gentlemen opposite would accept this as a fair statement of the principle of the Death Duty. At any rate, those were the words of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in introducing his Budget on the l5th of April, 1889, and they were extracted from Hansard of that date. Under these circumstances, it might be taken that the Government were not putting forward a very contestible principle when they said that realty and personalty should be assimilated, and that there should be a duty on all realty and personalty which passed on the death of the owner. This made it extremely difficult to maintain the first objection stated by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's second objection was that the proposal was extremely hard upon the owners of reversions. That was an expression which required a definition. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the tax should not be made personally payable by anybody who did not derive a present income from the property in respect of which it was levied. What the Government proposed to tax was not the reversionary interest as such, but the present value of the reversionary interest. This mode of dealing with property was not confined to reversionary values. It was adopted in the ease of pictures, and very often in the case of businesses, and also in the case of shares in public Companies. All the Government were doing was putting realty on the same footing as other sources of property. It seemed to him that while, no doubt, in a Bill of this kind there were considerations in reference to which it was difficult to ascertain on which side the balance of advantage lay, it was clear that no other words would be possible for dealing with the Death Duties in the way suggested by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). The principle of this Bill was one on which it was impossible for the Government to compromise. They would be evading their duty if they adopted any other proposition than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward, not as something which was accidental, but as something which was of the very essence of the principle of the Bill.

I do not propose at this stage to state my free views with regard to the points which have been raised. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has just quoted some phrases I used in 1889, and has put them forward as the foundation of the present proposal. I have already shown the absolute futility of attempting to father upon me any responsibility for the present proposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman must look, not only at two or three sentences extracted from my Budget speech, but at the action I took in 1889. He seemed to think that I contended at that time that realty and personalty had been put on the same footing for Probate Duty and for general taxation. The hon. and learned Gentleman must, however, be aware that in the proposals I made I did not treat realty and personalty alike, and it was made a charge against me at the time that I still left inequality between them. I felt at that time as I feel now, that if we endeavoured to deal with the Death Duties as the Government are now proposing to deal with them and put the same taxation upon realty as upon personalty, we should attempt the impossible, because we should be treating as similar two things which are totally dissimilar. In appearance you may make the two things alike, but in substance they will continue to be dissimilar. My right hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has referred to the difficulty of dealing with an estate which might pass through several hands successively and be taxed at every point. In the case of personalty you cancel a portion of your property in order to cover the duties, but in the case of realty you have no security that you will be able to do so. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have frequently disputed by sounds, but have never disputed in argument, the proposition that it is impossible to dispose of realty for the payment of duty as it is possible to dispose of personalty. If that is so, do you not establish a preferential treatment as against realty if you assume that you can treat personalty and realty both alike? The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to meet the argument which shows that you are putting on taxation which there may be no means to pay.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that this was not the clause on which this subject was to be determined, but he would ask what would be the position when they came to Clause 6 if they passed the first clause in the form in which it now stood? The words proposed to be left out were "principal value." The right hon. Gentleman said they were to leave the words in, and when they came to Clause 6 they were to settle the mode of determining the value. The first part of the clause merely dealt with deductions from the value, assuming the value to have been already ascertained. When they came to the 5th sub-section, they found it said—

"Subject to the provisions of this Act the value of any property for the purpose of the Estate Duty shall be ascertained,"

and so on. What was the meaning of the word "value" there? And when they decided that, how would they deal with the principal value? The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of introducing "principal value" as the test of the duty, but the first question that arose was what is principal value? Was there such a thing in existence? In the case of real property there was no such thing as principal value, unless and until the property had been sold. As the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out, there was great difference between real estate and personal property. A thousand pounds they could deal with in cash. If it were in goods they would have a definite value, and it could be dealt with accordingly; but that was not the case with real estate. A man could not realise the value of land unless he parted with it, and then it was no longer his. True, the land might be sold, but it was surely not proposed that in taxing in this way they were going to oblige every landowner to sell his property to ascertain what the tax might be. Under the Bill, the value would have to be arrived at by valuation, and everyone knew in cases of sale how widely the valuation of the purchaser differed from that of the vendor. A valuer, however honest and respectable, was naturally biassed in favour of his client. In his own experience, he had known the difference between respectable valuers amount to this—that those who had to receive the money valued the property at three times as much as those who had to pay for it. The whole thing was a matter of judgment—of opinion and speculation. Was that a proper test for the purpose of determining a tax? It was a matter which was purely one of opinion. By the 6th clause the value was to be left to the Commissioners to determine. Did anybody ever hear of a tax being imposed by any properly constituted authority when, by the mere process of determining the value, those who were to receive the tax might double the amount? It was giving to the Commissioners a power which belonged to this House alone— namely, of taxing, because by the simple process of doubling the value in fixing it they might expose the subject to a tax double the amount authorised by Parliament. These were observations with reference to principal value. There was no such thing—it was an imaginary thing; and surely it was a farce to propose to tax a thing which existed only in imagination. Take the case of land which it was supposed one day would let at a good annual value and which would then fetch a good price. Surely that was a matter of opinion only. A man might hold building land till, like a horse, it had eaten its head off. It was well known that many building land speculators had ruined themselves by holding land with the prospect of getting a high price; had, by waiting for the high price, allowed the annual value to be nothing at all, and by the time they had got the high price they were actual losers by the transaction. Could the House sanction the putting upon landed property of that description a tax which the owner would have no means whatever of raising? There was some talk of levelling up by putting land upon the same footing as personalty, but at the proper time he should be prepared to show that land at the present time, apart from local rates, paid equally, according to its value, with personalty. He could understand the propriety of taxing the principal value in the case of personalty, for they had no guarantee that it would remain for anything like an annual tax to be put upon it, therefore they taxed it when they could, and he did not object to it. But the observation which applied to personalty did not apply to real estate at all, because the latter was always there to be taxed. It was not like money which took to itself wings and flew away, but it would be always there to bear its share of local and Imperial burden, and, therefore, there was no ground whatever for dealing with it in the way they would deal with personal estate. He complained that his own Amendment had not been correctly represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he would show when he came to move that Amendment.

desired to say a few words in answer to what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). He was somewhat amused by the air of assumption which pervaded the speech of his hon. and learned Friend. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman desired to enforce on the House what they had heard outside in regard to certain action of his in another capacity, and to assume in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the responsibility—he might almost say the authorship—of the Budget. The hon. and learned Member seemed to put his observation in a position which he thought even his utterances were scarcely entitled to as yet. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them it was necessary to raise revenue by this Bill, and that although they were altering the principle they could not lower taxation in any respect. He utterly failed to see why because it was necessary to raise revenue they should adopt a principle which was radically wrong. The House ought first to determine on a just and equitable tax, and then fix the amount of the tax. The hon. and learned Member said the Government desired to make an arrangement based on logical principle; but did anyone suggest that this Bill was framed on a logical principle? They were dealing with the method of valuing for the purpose of levying the Estate Duty, but so far from that being in the category of Probate Duty or in the position of the Probate Tax on the personalty which the hon. and learned Member had referred to,' a considerable portion of the duty was to come out of the pockets of beneficiaries and legatees, who were to be taxed differently on the same amounts. What was the logic of levying a tax in which the amount was to depend upon the total value out of which the particular amount came, and which was to charge one man at one sum and another man at another sum? Their objection to the application of principal value to all classes of property was this—that it was impossible to justly impose the tax unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down certain special and definite rules whereby that principal value was to be ascertained. The hon. and learned Member said the tax should be levied upon what he was pleased to call—he presumed—the capital or selling value of the property at the time it passed. But had he attempted to deal with the case put by the Leader of the Opposition, of a small leasehold property where they might have reversions valued and paid for at their present value two or three times over before those reversions came into possession, or where they might have the reversionary value put at such a figure that it was absolutely impossible even to obtain security on the property? The Bill had not been framed on logical principles as compared with previous systems of valuation, and the Committee would have to discuss at a later stage to what extent this rule of graduation and capital value was to prevail. A good deal was to be said in favour of the theory of graduation when they were dealing with property coming into the hands of a particular beneficiary, but for the hon. and learned Gentleman to say when they were dealing with Probate Duty—which he admitted was a tax upon transfer to be levied on the passing of a particular property on the death of the person on whose decease the succession took place—that this scheme was based upon a logical principle was to entirely forget the basis upon which the Probate Duty had been justified and levied. The right hon. Member for Great Grimsby had raised the question of whether or not the principal value was to be applied all round. In raising that question the right hon. Gentleman had at any rate enabled the House to express its judgment as to whether or not one general rule was to be laid down, but it left open the question of how the definition of principal value or how these words were to be applied when they came to the particular class of property they had to deal with. He should have thought it would have been better if the Government had seen their way to use some expression which would have indicated better the principle on which they proposed to estimate the value; but, at any rate, the Opposition were perfectly justified in raising their protest against a system which put on an inequitable basis taxes which should fall on all classes of property.

said, he had listened to this Debate, and he confessed he did not in the least know what they were to divide upon, and those who cried "Divide !" he expected were as ignorant as he was. The right hon. Member for Great Grimsby had moved to leave out the words "principal value of," and he understood him to have explained he made that Motion in order to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some explanation of the method proposed to be pursued in ascertaining the principal value. The Chairman had put the Question that the word "the" stand part of the clause, and in so putting that simple word had reserved the question proposed to be moved by the hon. and learned Member for Harrow, who proposed to substitute for "principal" the "net annual." If they were going to have a discussion on that Amendment, what was the use of dividing on the word "the"? It seemed to him perfectly idle to do so, for a Division now would settle nothing. He would suggest, therefore, they should not waste their time in an idle Division, but proceed with the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow, which raised the distinct and separate question as to whether this should be the annual or the capital value; and subsequently they would be able to raise the important question proposed to be raised by the Member for the Isle of Wight as to whether the tax was to be regarded as a debt to the personal estate to be administered, or as a tax upon the interests of persons coming in in succession.

expressed his entire concurrence with the observations of his right hon. Friend. He was taken by surprise when he found there was an intention to divide on the word "the." They had spent a long time in discussing the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite, and what they really wanted to determine was, whether they were to take the principal value or the annual value. He would venture to suggest that the right hon. Member for Great Grimsby should withdraw his Amendment and allow the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow to come on, when they should then decide on the question, and then they could come to the important question raised by the Member for the Isle of Wight as to whether this tax should fall upon the successor or upon the corpus of the estate. Let them not waste their time on small points, but come to the principal matters at issue.

entirely agreed with the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that they should in this most difficult and complicated matter endeavour to concentrate themselves upon the main points of attack and defence, and endeavour to isolate as far as they could the various principles with which they had to deal, so that the issues should be clean-cut issues. But that was not at all an easy matter. He agreed that to divide on the word "the" seemed to be a rather empty Parliamentary operation. But one of the points on which he felt felt most strongly was the question of life interests, and that was not raised on the subsequent Amendments. There were objections to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Harrow. Annual value taken by itself might be extremely hard on agricultural land, and might be far too lenient with regard to reversionary interest. He did not think the real alternative was capital value versus annual value. His objection to the Government scheme was that it taxed capital value as distinguished from life interest. He had no special objection to a great deal of what would be the Government's plan of taking the value of agricultural laud. Their way might be a fair way of doing it. On the other hand, he agreed with the Government in thinking that taking the annual value of land for great reversionary interests was most unduly liberal to the present owners; but he did not think it was a fair way of dealing with reversionary interests to say they had to be taxed, and pay on death the full value of that reversion. Whether the word "the" in its abstract emptiness really was the best word to divide upon he could not say, but as the matter stood he should prefer to divide upon that word.

said, the right hon. Gentleman liked the word "the," and he did not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway on the question of annual value. He did not really wonder at that, because he did not think it would bear discussion for five minutes. But why did the right hon. Gentleman not give them an Amendment which represented his own view? That would be a thing worth dividing upon. He observed a remarkable absence of Amendments from responsible Members of the Opposition—from the Leader of the Opposition and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he was not surprised at that. They were, he thought, entitled to ask that the gentlemen responsible for the Opposition should tell the Chairman what they wished to divide on, and not invite them to divide upon an abstract "the," which was not the most useful way of occupying the time of Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what views would commend themselves to him, they should understand where they were. But what was the use of dividing on the word "the," and then having the Amendment from the hon. and learned Member for Harrow, which the Leader of the Opposition had indicated he could not support. Surely that was not the way to reach that clean cut issue which the right hon. Gentleman desired to reach.

said, ho did not know whether it had ever been the duty of an Opposition to suggest an alternative Budget. One of the difficulties they had in making any suggestion in this Budget was that they were constantly and necessarily hampered by the fact that a Resolution had to be passed in Committee before they could move a positive suggestion of any kind whatever, therefore they found themselves in a difficulty at every turn in framing a substantive Resolution. What he would suggest at the present moment was that they should divide upon the words "the principal." That, he thought, was a fair enough proposition.

hoped the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman would be accepted, as he regarded it as a business-like suggestion. If they adopted it, and divided on the words "the principal," they could then proceed with other Amendments which raised important points.

said, the "principal value" of hon. Members opposite seemed to be to prevent Debate, and the "principal value" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be to impart irrelevant and rather bitter re- marks into the Debate. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow would not meet the ease, because this dealt not merely with real property but also personal property. They could not take the annual value of personal property, and it would be impossible to explain the meaning of the words "principal value" in the clause. The reason was this: that, to his mind, the clause had been drawn with a set purpose of committing the House at the first stage to the whole of the Bill. If the Committee swallowed this clause it would swallow the whole of the Bill, including some parts which would have to be brought up again for the purpose of being rediscussed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his argument on an assumption that in this matter real estate only was dealt with. He had also stated —and the hon. Member for East Lothian had restated it—that the object of the clause was to assimilate real estate and personal estate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expatiated on the hardships of charging realty on annuity instead of principal value. He was not prepared to say that it was impossible to charge realty on an annuity where the fee simple passed, but the fee simple only passed in a small minority of cases. As a rule, what passed was not the fee simple, hut the life interest, and in those instances the full value was charged, inasmuch as they charged the successor with the full value of the annuity he got. In the case of the passing of the fee simple the full value of the estate should be charged, but those cases were only a small proportion of the cases in which Succession Duty was paid. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head; but would he favour the House with the figures on this subject, which he must have got for his own information. It increased their difficulties to deal with this matter without the figures. He felt sure that if the right hon. Gentleman would produce the figures the Committee would see that in the vast majority of cases the successor to real estate did pay on all he got. This was no place to put in the method of dealing with the property. The words "principal value" were in their wrong place, and the proposal to omit them was quite proper. Their inclusion now would render it impossible to discuss very important elements in succeeding portions of the Bill.

I think we have really got into a practical difficulty, and it would not be creditable to the business capacity of the House of Commons if we did not find some way out of it. It is evident that there are three separate questions which may be raised on the words "principal value." There is the question raised by the Amendment of my right hon. Friend beside me. He desired to have information as to the method of valuation to be adopted. He was answered in a most conciliatory and satisfactory manner by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The object of my right hon. Friend has therefore been attained, and he will, no doubt, be ready to withdraw his Amendment to make room for a new question. The second question raised was that of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow, whether annual value shall be substituted for principal value. That is a proper question to raise, but, inasmuch as the official Members of the Opposition will not be able to support him, and as my hon. Friends and myself will also be unable to support him, it is obvious that, although my hon. and learned Friend may raise an interesting discussion, he cannot take a Division of any considerable importance. It is not likely that he will be supported by any large section of the House, therefore I venture to suggest that no great harm would be done if my hon. and learned Friend sees fit to withdraw his Amendment. Then there comes the third question raised by the proposed Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. Passing over the question of whether it is customary for a Leader of the Opposition to move Amendments to a Bill, I would suggest that if the Committee passes the words in the way proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Leader of the Opposition will not be in Order subsequently in raising his very important Amendment. The present is, therefore, the only time at which to vote on the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, which will doubtless have the very large support of the Members of the Opposition. I do- not speak for the whole of them. As no one has been able to suggest any other way out of the difficulty, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrow not to press the Amendment at this stage, but to bring it forward on Report if he sees fit to do so, and to allow the Committee to divide now on the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition.

said, he hoped the Committee would give him credit for not wishing to place difficulties in the way of the Committee or in the way of the raising of a clear issue. He could not help saying, however, that it was rather hard that he should be called upon to withdraw his Amendment before he had moved it or had been heard upon it. His plan was to tax the product of the land instead of something undefinable— namely, the imaginery capital value. However, he did not wish to stand in the way of an issue being taken. He hoped they would have a vote of the House on the Question whether the words "principal value" should remain. If they were allowed to pass it would be necessary to pay on capital value. As he had not yet moved his Amendment, it was not necessary to withdraw it. He was ready to fall in with any arrangement that might be proposed.

said, he looked upon the words "corpus value" as an essential part of the Bill. He thought the only question was that the corpus or principal value should be ascertained fairly, so that no one should pay on more than they enjoyed. If the word "principal" were left out it would make the first clause agree better with Clause 6.

said, he would point out, as a reason for omitting the word "principal," that the duty it was proposed to impose combined the old Probate Duty and what was really a Succession Duty with reference to land, and a great deal of personal property besides. If that were so, in putting in the word "principal" they would be using a correct expression with reference to what would be equivalent to the old Probate Duty, but an improper expression with reference to what would be received as Legacy and Succession Duty. If they admitted the word here he was certain it would lead to nothing but confusion.

We have now arrived at a settlement of the question. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that perhaps the word "the" ought to stand. I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment, and then either he or I will move to omit the word "principal."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, to leave out the word"principal."— ( Mr. Heneage.)

Question put, "That the word 'principal' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 189.—(Division List, No. 62.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—( Mr. A. J. Balfour,) —put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Indian Railway Companies Bill (No 184)

Committee

Order for Committee read.

said, he did not intend to oppose the Bill, as he understood from the Secretary of State for India that it was an important and urgent measure for India. There were, however, one or two matters he should like to refer to when the clauses were reached.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3.

said, that Sub-section 1 said that the railways should be "actually completed" before the section applied. Did that mean that the whole railway should be completed, or simply a portion of it? The clause seemed to be vague. The payment of interest out of capital should not extend to all the railway systems, but to certain sections. He should like an explanation of Sub-section 4, which said that a certain part of a railway might be in running order, and still payments out of capital might continue to be made as interest. That seemed to him a questionable arrangement. He should also like to have an explanation of Sub-section 6, which said that no such interest should accrue to any shareholder during the time which any calls might be in arrear. That seemed a drastic provision. Perhaps the Secretary of State would tell him that he had power to consider details, and that he would rectify any injustice which might be done.

said, that the railways mentioned in Sub-section 1 were railways actually completed and open for traffic. As to net earnings of railways, he intended Sub-section 4 to be explanatory of Subsection 1, its object being to prevent interest being increased beyond 4 per cent. As to the 6th sub-section, no doubt it was drastic, but drastic legislation was required in this matter, and he was strictly following the legislation of this House with regard to English railways. He bad not gone beyond the Rule Parliament had laid down for the guidance of Committees in the House. The object of the Bill was to enable the Secretary of State in Council to exercise the same powers as a Committee of the House under Standing Orders. He was obliged to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bartley) for not opposing the Bill any further. It was true that at a time when labour and material was cheap it was fitting that the construction of railways, which were very much wanted in India, should be entered upon.

said, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, on Report, he would consent to put in a clause to limit the period of the Bill? As he took it, the Bill was intended to last in perpetuity. He could not find any restricting period in it, and he thought that such a measure, which allowed an indefinite number of railways to be created, and allowed interest to be paid out of capital, should come before the House in 10 years, or some other period for revision. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point.

I will consider the matter.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Thursday.

Evening Continuation Schools Cook, 1894

Motion For An Address

said, he begged to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that she will direct the New Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools to be amended in the following particulars, namely:—Page 15 (Association of Workers), leave out 2. Working men's cooperative societies, their work in distribution and production.' Page 17, leave out' the services rendered by retail shopkeepers, merchants, manufacturers, and other persons, engaged in distribution and production."

He did not deny the merits of the cooperative system, which had its advantages. It had rendered services to the community, and had an historic reputation, but it had a district trade interest in competition with the ordinary retail interest of the country. When it was proposed to inculcate the views and practice of the Co-operative Societies through the medium of State-aided schools many people very naturally objected on the ground that the elementary education of the young should not be made a subject cither of Party, social, or commercial controversy. When objection was taken to the inclusion of the work of Co-operative Societies in the Code the Government put in the services rendered by retail shopkeepers. But obviously it was not proposed to make these subjects matters of public instruction until it was suggested that the work of Co-operative Societies should be put in the Code. The retail traders were quite content that their services and work should remain matters of common knowledge, but they did object to have instruction in the methods of co-operation taught in schools in competition with their work. That this matter was a controversial one was proved by the fact that since the Motion had been on the Paper he had received information from many quarters of the House that telegrams had rained upon hon. Members from Co-operative Societies begging them to support it. Our public schools should be kept free from such controversies. He begged to move his Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that She. will direct the New Code of Regulations for livening Continuation Schools to be amended in the following particulars, namely: —

Page 16 (Association of workers), to leave out "2. Working men's co-operative societies, their work in distribution and production."

Page 17, leave out "the services rendered by retail shopkeepers, merchants, manufacturers, and other persons engaged in distribution and production."—(Sir R. Temple.)

said, that the subject had been raised last Session, but had been evaded by Her Majesty's Government. The objection was to the mention of Co-operative Societies amongst the subjects to be taught in evening continuation schools. His objection was based on the broad principle that it was not wise or expedient that they should in evening continuation schools, or in any other State-aided schools, deal with questions that were controversial, debateable, or likely to cause a divergence of opinion. Controversial polities and religion were not taught in our schools. He did not argue the merits of co-operation. It was sufficient to point out that it was opposed to trade by individual dealers, and that the teaching of the principles and practice of co-operative trade was an offence to those engaged individually in retail trade. They might be told that this teaching was done discreetly—that the facts were broad ones, and that it was only proper that instruction should be given in them. But it was not done discreetly. The Secretary for Scotland had been good enough to say that if instances could be found where the teaching was not discreet the Department would intervene. Well, he (Mr. Cross) knew of a case where a little girl in her home lessons had received questions to be answered of this character—"State in your reply the advantages you will derive from belonging to a Co-operative Store."["Hear, hear !"] Hon. Gentlemen said "Hear, hear !" but if they had been in the position of the father of that little girl—a retail dealer —who found his daughter being taught to define the system which was opposed to the principles by which he gained his living what would have been their sentiments? He submitted that such a thing was an outrage. [Laughter]. If hon. Gentlemen laughed it showed that they were not bestowing that attention to the matter which they ought to do. Traders objected to the teaching of a system which was cutting their throats, especially as it was being taught now—and he ventured to think that it could not be taught as the Secretary for Scotland would like it to be. How could the principles of co-operative trading be taught so as not to be offensive to the parents of the children? The lesson to be taught was that by dealing at Cooperative Stores people were able to obtain goods cheaper than they could be obtained from the retail dealers. It was, he maintained, wrong to impart such lessons to children in State-aided schools. Statements of that kind might be true or might not, but even if true their teaching was calculated to injure other people. Hon. Members who supported the teaching of these subjects in the Education Code objected to the teaching of religion which was more or less controversial in the State-aided schools. He would apply to these gentlemen their own doctrine. When they lent themselves to any special method of conducting trade they gave that method the cloak of their authority, and it went before the country under a false aspect. He could not understand why co-operation should be taught. He was afraid that the whole object was to puff and laud certain stores in certain localities. He might tell the House that retail traders did not care for the advertisements that was given to them by the reference made to them in the Code. [Mr. ACLAND): Yes, they do.] They would no doubt like to have their particular business advertised, as co-operative businesses would be advertised by the instruction that would be given. There was only one Co-operative Store in a given locality, and if co-operation were lauded that store would be lauded. He had that day received a largely signed Petition against the Code, and he had also received telegrams from the Cooperative Stores in the division he represented in favour of the Code. He submitted that the receipt of these communications showed that there was a strong division of feeling in this constituency, and he contended that under these circumstances it was not right that these Regulations should remain in the Code.

said, that in an admirable Code of Regulations for evening continuation schools the Education Department, with an impartiality and equality of treatment of both Co-operative Stores and private traders of which every one must approve, had put down in the Schedule of subjects of teaching for young people of over 15 years of age the principles of workmen's Co-operative Societies, and also the services rendered by retail traders, merchants, manufacturers, and others. It seemed that it was the duty of any Educational Body to bring before young people the chief phases and characteristics of our national life. That being so, he could not see what objection there could be to giving equality of treatment to co-operation and private trading. He had read many of the primers supplied to school children, and he found that in every school the works of John Stuart Mill, Fawcett, and the leading economists were used. Did the hon. Gentleman opposite contend that a movement which had 1,250,000 members, and which supplied something like 4,000,000 of consumers, was a movement which related to a subject on which young people ought not to be instructed? The Code did not advocate co-operation. It simply suggested the giving to children of expository resumes of the principles of co-operation, and so forth. It did just the same with regard to private traders, and he really could not see how any objection could be taken to it by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple), whom he had always looked upon as an educational expert of great ability, and as one who had done the cause of education in London a great deal of good. It was to him (Mr. Burns) a source of congratulation that in this country there were 28,000 working-men's Associations with a capital of £213,000,000, including Trades Unions, Co-operative Societies, Friendly Societies, and Building Societies. If he were a religious man he should be inclined to say that the British people were predestined through those agencies to be a crucible in which all the industrial, social, and constructive political theories of the future were to be developed. To say that these theories were not to be brought before their children was to put back the clock of education in order to please a few retail traders. The co-operators did not ask for State aid. As a Socialist, he was opposed to co-operation in many aspects, though not because he disapproved of many of its principles; still, he did not think that a reason why he should object to the principles and objects of the Co-operative Societies being taught to the children so that they might inform themselves, and in the end choose as between the co-operative system of producing and distributing goods and the private trading system. Ho congratulated the Education Department upon having drawn up this admirable Code. It would have been incomplete without co-operation and private trading. The hon. Baronet, who had done much for the cause of education in London, was taking the most reactionary step he had ever taken in education, and he hoped the House would not support him.

said, he had little to add to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He would point out, however, that no School Authority in the country need cause these subjects to be taught unless they liked, and then it was only in night schools. Ho thought it unadvisable to leave out from their syllabus words which would enable managers to teach the first principles of political economy. It was absurd to talk about money being in this intolerable way—as it appeared to the hon. Member behind him (Mr. A. Cross)— when their own sons in the public schools and Universities—which were largely supported out of public funds—were receiving instruction in political economy as taught by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and other authorities. If hon. Members as parents did not object to their sons receiving instruction embracing the subjects to which exception was now taken, why should they object to allowing young people of 15, l8, or 21 years of age, who had left the ordinary day schools and were attending evening continuation schools, to receive similar instruction? There had been no desire to stimulate controversy in this matter. The moment the private traders had objected to the teaching of co-operation to meet their wishes the work of the private traders and manufacturers was included in the Code. He was now told that none of the private traders were satisfied. If that were so, he should be sorry for it. Let them agitate against the local School Hoards who adopted the Code, and so prevent the subject to which they objected being taught. For his own part, it seemed a most rational subject to offer to managers of schools to teach if they chose. The Code was being availed of by the London School Board, who took great interest in the subject. University men were teaching large numbers of boys these subjects—be was sure in no controversial spirit, but purely as a matter of principle. If the objections which had been urged to-night were to be taken on principle, they would not be able to put any arithmetical problem to a child in which he was invited to go to the grocers' or the butchers to buy so many pounds or tea or of meat. The objections were ridiculous. The House, no doubt, would agree with the hon. Member for Battersea that these subjects should be taught when such instruction was suitable, and to the benefit of those to whom it was given.

said, that the reference to the Co-operative Societies was on one page of the Code and the reference to private traders on another. Could the School Authorities, if they chose, take one page for instruction and let the other alone?

said, he wished to know if the services rendered by the little shopkeepers would appear in the Scottish Code?

said, if any Scottish School Board desired to instruct children in the principles of retail trading it. would be encouraged by the Scotch Office, and next year the subject would be put in the Code.

Question put, and negatived.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 1) Bill—(No 103)

Read the third time, and passed.

Pier And Harbour Provisional Orders (No 2) Bill—(No 203)

Read the third time, and passed.

Consolidated Fund (No 2) Bill

Read the third time, and passed.

Public Works Loans Bill—(No 235)

Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

Police (Slaughter Of Injured Animals) Bill—(No 208)

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Motions

Canal Tolls And Charges Provisional Order (No 4) (Birmingham Canal) Bill

On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Tolls and Charges applicable thereto, for the Birmingham Canal Navigations, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Bryce.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 252.]

Canal Tolls And Charges Provisional Order (No 5) (Regent's Canal) Bill

On Motion of Mr. Burt. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Tolls and Charges applicable thereto, for the Regent's Canal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Bryce.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 253.]

Canal Tolls And Charges Provisional Order (No 6) (River Lee, &C) Bill

On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, "containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Tolls and Charges applicable thereto, for the River Lee Navigation and certain other Canals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hurt and Mr. Bryce.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 254.]

Local Government (Ireland) Pro Visional Order (No 11) Bill

On Motion of Mr. J. Morley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," relating to the urban sanitary district of Clones, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J Morley and Sir J. T. Hibbert.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 255.]

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No 12) Bill

On Motion of Mr. J. Morley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878." relating to the rural sanitary district of Coleraine, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. Morley and Sir J. T. Hibbert,

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 256.]

Local Government Provisional Orders (No 18) Hill

On Motion of Sir W. Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary district of Kings Lynn (two), the Burnley Joint Hospital District, and the West Kent Main Sewerage District, ordered to be brought in by Sir W. Foster and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 257.]

Supreme Court Of Judicature (Pro-Oedure:) Bill Lords

Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Bill

On Motion of Mr. H. Gardner, Bill for enabling the Board of Agriculture to undertake Prosecutions in certain cases under "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. Gardner, Sir J. T. Hibbert, and Mr. Burt.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 259.]

Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill

On Motion of Mr. H. Gardner, Bill to consolidate with Amendments the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1893, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. Gardner, The Attorney General, and The Lord Advocate.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 260.]

Education (England And Wales) (Endowed Schools Acts)

Copy presented,—of Report to the Committee of Council on Education of the Proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Endowed Schools Act, 1869, And Amending Acts, And Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889

Copy presented,—of Scheme for the management of the Funds applicable to the intermediate and technical education of the inhabitants of the county of Denbigh in the matter of (1) the Ruthin Grammar School (2) the Denbigh Grammar School (3) Sir John Wynne's Hospital and School at Llanrwst (4) the Ruabon Grammar School, and (5) the Wrexham Grammar School Exhibition Foundation, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 134.]

Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 To 1893 (Ireland)

Copy presented,—of Return under the Acts for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Army (Military Prisons)

Copy presented,—of New Rule for Military Prisons [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Factory And Workshop Acts, 1878 To 1891 (Dangerous Trades)

Copy presented,—of Order of Secretary of State certifying that certain Processes are dangerous or injurious to health [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Navigation And Shipping

Copy presented,—of Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping of the United Kingdom for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock.

Volume 24: debated on Monday 28 May 1894

House Of Commons

Private Business

Thames Conservancy Bill (By Order) Committee

Questions

Army Schoolmasters' Pensions

Workmen's Tickets

Communication With The West Coast Of Ross-Shire

Flannan Islands Lighthouse

Harbours In The Island Of Lewis

Vivisection

Food Adulteration

Edinburgh Museum

The Tithe Disputes In Wales

The Royal Review At Aldershot

Glasgow Shipowners' Associations And The Manning Of The Mercantile Marine

Cricket In Phcenix Park, Dublin

The Transvaal Republic

Alleged Racing By Atlantic Liners

Aberdeen University Library

Second Division Admiralty Clerks

Public Rights On The Thames

Portnahaven Lighthouse

Armagh District Lunatic Asylum Loan

Killybegs Pier

London Police And Fatal Accidents

The Royal Commission On Tuberculosis

The Imprisonment Of Amelia Gifford

Outrages In A Donegal Churchyard

Samoa

Admiralty Bolt And Nut Contracts

French Canals

Sir Richard Sankey

Post Office Belt, &C Contract

Irish Railway Rates For Bacon And Pork

Welsh Cathedrals

Post Office Administration

Land Titles In Ceylon

The Case Of Mehdi Hassan

Furious Cycle Riding

Wage Earners And Trade Unions

Jabez Spencer Balfour

The Alleged Illtreatment Of The Matabele Wounded

Prison Administration

Wimbledon Rifle Range

The Importation Of Foreign Bottles

The Smearing Of Mango Trees In Behar

Mixed Trains On Irish Railways

Recruiting In British Colonies

School Attendance In Scotland

Lunatics In Belfast Workhouse

Fees On Appointment Of Magistrates

Insanitary Steamers On The Scotch Coast

Magistracy, Co Tipperary

Army Medical Department Report

Railway Men As Board Of Trade Inspectors

The Saltcoats Crofter Settlement

British Sphere Of Influence In East Africa

Derelict Land Ix Essex

Fur Seal Fisheries

Trade With The Colonies

The Course Ok Public Business

Canadian Cattle

The Irish Church Fund

Adjournment

Manufacture Of Explosives (Waltham Abbey)

Orders Of The Day

Finance Bill

Second Night

Indian Railway Companies Bill (No 184)

Committee

Evening Continuation Schools Cook, 1894

Motion For An Address

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 1) Bill—(No 103)

Pier And Harbour Provisional Orders (No 2) Bill—(No 203)

Consolidated Fund (No 2) Bill

Public Works Loans Bill—(No 235)

Police (Slaughter Of Injured Animals) Bill—(No 208)

Motions