, on behalf of Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): That the failure of successive Administrations to give employment in Civil Departments to Reserve or time-expired soldiers and sailors of good character is contrary to public policy and detrimental to the interests of the Service, and that this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make larger provision for the employment of such persons, by allotting to them preferentially such posts in the public service as they are competent to 61). [Tuesday, 21st April]

gave notice of a similar motion for the same day.

That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to take such steps as may be necessary to withdraw from the Declaration respecting Maritime Law, dated the 16th day of April, 1856, and annexed to the 23rd Protocol of the Conferences held at Paris relative to the General Treaty of Peace in 1856. [Tuesday, 21st April.]

This day four weeks, or on as early a date afterwards as possible, he would move:—"That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that the appointment and dismissal of principal Ministers of the Crown should rest with the representatives of the people." [Laughter.]

On an early day he would call attention to the subject of steam-trawling on the coast of Scotland, and the necessity of extending the territorial limit for fishing purposes, and move a Resolution.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the frequent statements made in the Reports on Trade and Commerce that, in foreign, countries. British textiles and iron wares are being superseded by the manufactures of Germany, France, and Belgium, he will, in his instructions to the Consuls, impress upon them the desirability of their giving increased attention to these facts, and of their forwarding more frequently for the; use of Chambers of Commerce samples or descriptions and prices of articles which are believed to be taking the place of the products of this country?

The instructions already issued to Her Majesty's Consular Representatives abroad contain very specific directions concerning the competition of foreign trades and the forwarding of samples. In accordance therewith samples have been received from a large number of places, and have been communicated to the Chambers of Commerce. Inasmuch, however, as the matter is one of considerable importance, I propose to issue a reminder to the Consuls of their duties in this respect.

asked if it would be possible to supply Chambers of Commerce with copies of the instructions.

said he would be happy to communicate a copy of the instructions to the hon. Gentleman if he desired it.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War, if it is the intention of the Government to complete the military defences of the Clyde at an early date, by carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1888 in regard to the armaments at the Cumbraes, and by protecting the mine field at Gourock, as reported on by Captain Callaghan last year?

It is not known to what report of Captain Callaghan the hon. Member refers, but a certain amount of defence has been afforded to the mine field at Gourock. We are not in a position to make any declaration at present as to providing armaments for the Cumbraes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that maps have been published by Captain Lugard and others showing the, existence of Belgian posts in the territory leased by Great Britain to the Congo State, and abandoned by that State in consequence of the objections of France; whether, when orders were given in 1894 by Captain Paul Le Marine), one of the Inspectors of the Congo State, to withdraw the three Belgian officers who were in this leased territory in the direction of the Bahr-el-Ghazel, the most distant post commanded by a lieutenant, being 150 miles north of the Upper Welle, the march southward lasted from December 1894 until April 1895; whether information can be given to the House as to the present condition of the large Egypto-Turkish territory thus abandoned by the Congo State; and, with reference to the other leased territory not the subject of French remonstrance, whether Her Majesty's Government continue to regard the lease as binding, and Duffileh and Wadelai as posts properly to be occupied by the Congo State?

The map published in Captain Lugard's work illustrates the expedition of Captain von Kerkhoven, who was killed in 1893. The posts marked, all of which were south of Lado, are understood to have been evacuated for purely local, reasons when the expedition retired. Her Majesty's Government have, however, no information on the subject which is not available to the public. Our information is that there were no posts occupied by Congo State, Forces within the British sphere in the direction of the Bahr-el-Ghazel. No information has been received as to the retirement from posts outside this sphere to which the Question seems to refer. As I stated in reply to a Question on the 17th instant, we have no trustworthy information as to the present condition of the Bahr-el-Ghazel districts. Her Majesty's Government were not a party to, and have not been informed as to, what may have passed between the Congo State and any other Power in regard to the leased territory. They are consequently not at present in a position to state how the leases might be affected thereby. It must, however, be remembered that the portion of the territory in which Wadelai and Duffileh are situated was not leased by the Agreement of May 1894 to the Congo State, but to the Sovereign of that State for the period of his reign.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the cause of the delay in connecting the post office at Mansfield with the trunk telephone system, most of the requisite apparatus having been provided; and, when such connection may be expected to take place?

Owing principally to the difficulty of procuring sufficient apparatus, it has been found necessary to proceed gradually with the transfer of the working of the Trunk Telephone Lines from the National Telephone Company. The arrangements will first be completed in that part of the country which lies south of the Thames, and the transfer will take effect there on the 4th of next month. The District comprising Mansfield is receiving attention, and it is hoped that it will be possible to effect the transfer there at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any appointment has yet been made to the position of Collector of Customs under the provisions of the Treasury Minute dated 24th March 1891; and, if not, whether he can state why this provision of the Minute has not been carried into effect?

The hon. Member doubtless refers to the following sentence in the Treasury Minute of 24th March 1891:—

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary agree with the Board, who will in future promote Surveyors to be Collectors, when the public interest allows."

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to a case of cruelty in the Whitchurch Workhouse on the part of a pauper nurse, who in a fit of temper put a child into hot water and scalded one foot badly and the other slightly; whether he will have the ease investigated; and, whether he is taking any steps to press on Boards of Guardians the importance of establishing a system of trained nursing in workhouse infirmaries, and abolishing the custom of relying on paupers as nurses?

I have made inquiry respecting the case referred to, and I find that, in consequence of several cases of measles having occurred in the Workhouse, mostly of the made type, three inmates were directed to look after them, although, under ordinary circumstances, paupers are not employed to look after the sick. I am informed that on previous occasions, under similar circumstances, instructions were given by the Guardians that an additional nurse should be employed. It is much to be regretted that these instructions were not carried out when these additional cases occurred. The conduct of the pauper referred to was no doubt most reprehensible, and the Guardians communicated with the police with a view to its being considered whether a prosecution should not be instituted against her. I am glad to learn, however, from a certificate of the Medical Officer, that the injuries were not of a serious character, and that the child is now quite well. The Board, by a circular letter issued on the 29th of January 1895, urged upon Boards of Guardians the importance of appointing only trained and experienced nurses, and at the same time stated that "whilst the Board are not prepared to lay it down as a rule that in no case should pauper inmates act as attendants in sick wards, as dearly distinguished from nurses, they consider that their services should only be used with the approval of the, medical officer, and under the closest supervision at all times of paid officers. The importance of attention to these matters is urged upon the Guardians by the Board and their inspectors.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that Mr. William Farran, residing at Toorleitra, Woodford, County Galway, two years ago, by representing to the tenants on the Featherston Estate, that, having purchased the property and become their landlord, got two years rent together, with arrears, from almost all the tenants except a tenant named Michael Hennessy, who refused to pay unless Farran showed title; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Farran sued Hennessy for the rent at last Quarter Sessions, and after swearing that Hennessy owed him the rent, had to admit on cross-examination that he could not show any title to the property, and the case was dismissed with costs; (3) also that Mr. Farran served an ejectment on a widow, named O'Dea, got a decree, and evicted her last August; and, (4) whether, seeing that Mr. Farran was appointed to the Commission of Peace for the County of Galway a few months ago, he will take these statements into consideration for further action thereon?

I am informed that about two years ago Mr. Farran purchased the property in question from the former landlord, and that the tenants in general paid their rents to Mr. Farran with the exception of Hennessy, who, at the January Quarter Sessions, took defence to a process which was dismissed without costs—Mr. Farran not being then in a position to produce a conveyance of the property owing to the death of the late landlord. A decree had been previously obtained against Mrs. O'Dea, who owed fourteen years' rent and made no defence, but she was readmitted as caretaker. Mr. Farran would appear to have acted in a bona fide manner throughout these transactions, and no action is called for as suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in order to save labourers in rural districts from having to walk long distances, amounting often (there and back) to 10 or 12 miles, to fetch medicines for their wives or children in receipt of outdoor medical relief, the Post Office could arrange for a gratuitous medicine post, by which Poor Law medical officers could send medicines to pauper patients in such districts?

There is a strict rule against sending glass by letter post; and packets containing bottles of medicine cannot therefore be accepted for transmission as letters. The Parcel Post, however, is available at reasonable rates for medicines whether in bottles or otherwise. I may also state that, for the convenience of the public in urgent cases, the ordinary rule prohibiting mail cart drivers and rural postmen from carrying private parcels has been so far relaxed as to enable them to carry small packets of medicine. The Postmaster General sees no reason why the duty of the free conveyance of medicine should be cast upon the Post Office.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he will consider the feasibility of giving a second pair of boots to Militiamen when they take part in manœuvres?

It is not contemplated that under ordinary conditions the wear and tear of the Militiamen's boots will be so much greater at manœuvres than it is at ordinary trainings as to require a double issue of boots. Should exceptional conditions arise, the question will be considered.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who is now the Superintendent of the Factory at Enfield?

The appointment is vacant, but the question of a successor to Mr. Rigby will shortly be decided. Meanwhile, the arrangements in force are those which obtained when Mr. Rigby was absent on leave.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is possible to distribute to local bodies the Government contribution in lieu of rates at an earlier period in each half year, having regard to the fact that local authorities have to meet the precepts from the London County Council and School Board before the Government contribution is paid, and consequently are forced to make a higher rate than would otherwise be necessary?

The question of the date of paying the Government contributions in lieu of rates has recently been under consideration, and the Government has decided to pay within the half year in which the rates which form the subject of the contributions are made instead of after its close. My hon. Friend will recollect that a Supplementary Vote of £92,000 was taken last month, in order to enable the Treasury to give immediate effect to this change. Out of this Vote the necessary payments are now being made, and they will be completed before the new financial year opens on the 1st of next month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has recently appointed Mr. J. F. S. Fowler, late Surgeon Captain Army Medical Staff, to the post of Colonial Surgeon in British Guiana; if so, whether, at the time of making the appointment, he was aware that Mr. Fowler had recently left the Army Medical Department, and of the circumstances under which he retired; and whether, before making the appointment, he received any special recommendation of Mr. Fowler from the Army Medical Department?

I have made the appointment in question, and with a knowledge of the circumstances referred to. Dr. Fowler's reputation in the Service, before the events which led to his retirement, was excellent; and the medical authorities were consulted before he was selected for employment under the Colonial Office.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the headquarters of the Donegal Militia, which it was authoritatively announced some time ago, was the intention of the authorities to fix at Ballyshannon, have been again fixed at Lifford this year; whether Lord Wolseley when Commander of the Forces in Ireland, visited Ballyshannon for the purpose of directing the arrangements necessary for the establishment of the headquarters of the Donegal Militia in that town; what has led to the departure from the original arrangement; and, is it in contemplation, having regard to the exceptional advantages of Ballyshannon for that purpose, to establish in future the headquarters of the Militia in that town?

There has been no change in the intention to move the headquarters of the 5th battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers from Lifford to Ballyshannon, but the Commander of the Forces did not think it desirable to do so until certain other troops could be moved from Ballyshannon. The re-appropriation of the Ballyshannon barracks is now being dealt with, but the training must take place this year at Lifford.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, Sir JOHN COLOMB, T beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he will take an early opportunity of explaining to the House, either by a Memorandum or otherwise, the general principles which have determined the grouping of the Military Forces in the Paper (107) presented by Her Majesty's command, showing approximately the cost of Military Forces as divided under Colonial Garrisons, Field Army, Depôts, &c., and of stating:—why the 79,000 Army Reserve is distributed in the proportions stated under the different heads, only 5,000 of the whole being placed under the heading "Troops held in Reserve;" why the Militia Reserve of 30,000 is not also so distributed, but placed under one head "Troops held in Reserve:" why a Yeomanry Force of 8,200 is placed under the heading "Troops held in Reserve," and only 1,500 placed under head of "Defensive positions at Home;" and the reasons for including under the same headings troops available and troops not available for service beyond sea; and, whether, in the form of a Memorandum or otherwise, he will state the total force of Cavalry, Field Artillery, and Infantry respectively, now in the United Kingdom and available for service beyond sea?

It would be impossible within the limits of a reply to a Question to give the information asked for, and it seems hardly desirable to justify in a Memorandum the exact allocation of troops. But generally speaking it is desirable to hold in reserve some troops of each arm, available, to reinforce the field Army, whether for service at home or abroad.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that, when the West Highland Railway was promoted, the support of the inhabitants along Loch Long and Loch Goil was sought and obtained by the company on the express understanding that a station would be placed at Portincaple, which is situated on Loch Long, Dumbartonshire, opposite Loch Goil, and conveniently situated for the traffic of both lochs. Has his attention been called to a petition by the inhabitants regarding the failure of the railway company to implement their promise. And, can he makes any representations to the company, or take any other steps to secure the opening of this station?

I have seen the Memorial referred to, but the Company deny that any promise was ever made to the inhabitants along Loch Long and Loch Goil as to the erection of a station at Portincaple. The only obligation upon the company in the matter is that contained in Sub-section 2 of Section 29 of their Act of 1889, with reference to the erection of a station at the instance of the Luss Trustees. The company also inform me that the question of a station at Whistlefield has been for some time under consideration and a plan is at present in course of preparation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that Mr. H. Hancock, of Oundle, has, between 23rd August 1894 and 9th January 1896, been prosecuted and fined five times for non-compliance with the Vaccination Acts, in respect of one child, the total fines and costs amounting to 50s., and twice for another child, the fines amounting to 34s. 6d.; and that Mr. E. Bradshaw has been prosecuted four times between 13th June 1895 and 5th March 1896, in respect of the same child, and has had to pay 64s. in fines and costs; and, whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Interim Report of the Vaccination Commission as to repeated prosecutions, and to the previous practice of the Local Government Board, he will direct a copy of the Evesham letter to be sent to the Guardians with the intimation that repeated prosecutions in respect of the same child should not be insisted on?

I have made inquiry of the Guardians of the Oundle Union, and I find that the statements as to the number of proceedings instituted in the cases referred to and the amount of penalties and costs are substantially correct. I have no authority to give such instructions as are suggested, but I have directed that a copy of the Evesham letter shall be sent to the Guardians.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the present very general assent to the principle of making some provision for old age pensions, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of immediately assigning a pension to all the remaining Crimean veterans who are not already in receipt of pensions?

The Secretary of State does not at present see his way to the great increase of expenditure from Army Votes which would be involved by any serious departure from the restrictions which now govern the grant of "Campaign" pensions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, how many of the appointments on the staff of the new National Portrait Gallery have been allotted to pensioners of the Army, Navy, or Police, and how many to civilians?

The subordinate male staff of the National Portrait Gallery consists of I head porter, I head messenger, 10 curators, and 8 messengers. Of these 10 are Army, Navy, or Police pensioners, 3 have served in the Army but not long enough for pension, and 7 are civilians. Sixteen of the 20 are new appointments and, of the 16, 12 have served in either the Army or the Navy.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax is deducted from the pay of officers of the Royal Navy serving afloat; and, if so, whether he would consider the possibility of remitting it?

The answer is in the affirmative. The tax could not be remitted in the case of officers in the Royal Navy without conceding a similar remission to officers in other branches of the public service, which would be obviously undesirable. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction still exists among officers of the Indian Staff Corps in consequence of their suppression by the line; whether he is aware that the concession of temporary rank to commandants and seconds in command of native regiments does not appreciably prevent their suppression by the line (seeing that officers having permanent rank take precedence of all those serving with them having temporary rank of the I same grade), while it creates wholesale suppression among staff corps officers themselves; and, whether he will ask the War Office to reconsider the decision arrived at last year, so as to meet the views expressed by Lord Lansdowne, on; behalf of the Government of India, as shown in the Return presented to this House last Session, entitled East India (Staff Corps Officers)?

No further representation from the Government Of India has been received on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers, and in the absence of any such representation, I do not propose to reopen the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that much inconvenience is caused at Ballymoney owing to the situation of the Post Office, it being a considerable distance from the railway station and from the centre of the town; and whether he will take steps for its removal to a better site?

The Post Office premises at Ballymoney, which are provided by the Postmaster, have been in their present position for upwards of 15 years, and, though not in the main street, are considered to be reasonably convenient for the inhabitants generally. No complaints on the subject have been received, and it is not considered to be necessary to require the Postmaster to move.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the standard of education and limit of age required for appointments as sub-postmaster in Ireland; was a coastguard pensioner, named P. Scully, aged 60 years, who was recently appointed sub-postmaster at Baltimore, examined on behalf of the Postmaster General to test his fitness by education for the position, and did he produce a certificate of age; and, whether he is aware that a number of people of education, having considerable property in Baltimore, were candidates for the office, and will he state what were the special circumstances which caused the appointment to be given to Mr. Scully in preference to one of those; and, whether, considering the importance of the office, he will inquire into all the circumstances of the appointment?

For the appointment of sub-postmaster no particular standard of education or limit of age is prescribed; and, accordingly, Mr. Patrick Scully, who has been appointed sub-postmaster of Baltimore, was not required to produce a certificate of age or to undergo any educational test. He was, however, strongly recommended to the Postmaster General as in all respects fit for the appointment, and it was ascertained that he could read and write well, and that he is about 57 years of age. It is the case that he is a coastguard pensioner. Of the other four candidates who applied, three were considered ineligible—two because they kept public-houses, and the third because the situation of the house was inconvenient. As between the fourth and Mr. Scully, the balance of advantage, was all on the side of Mr. Scully. The Postmaster General sees no reason for making any further inquiry than has been made already.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if, in connection with work now being carried on at the Nedds Point Fort, Buncrana, he will consider the advisability of the War Department constructing a road from the town of Buncrana to that fort along the shore, seeing that the existing road to the fort is practically inaccessible and hardly ever used, and that the Officer of Engineers at present quartered at Buncrana is of opinion that this new road is highly desirable?

However convenient the road referred to in the Question would be, it is not required for military purposes; and the cost of its construction could not be defrayed from Army Funds.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government can produce Lord Cromer's Dispatches in reference to the proposed expedition to Dongola?

NO Dispatches respecting the advance up the Valley of the Nile have been received from Lord Cromer. The communications from him have been by telegraph, and could not be laid before the House.

I should like to ask the right; hon. Gentleman whether any Papers are going to be laid before the House or not?

No, Sir; I know of none.

May I ask whether the expedition was undertaken in consequence of the recommendation of Lord Cromer? ["Oh!"]

The hon. Member must give notice of that Question. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the assent of any of the great Powers to the proposal to take funds from the reserve in the Egyptian Caisse de la Dette, in order to meet the costs of the expedition towards Dongola, was assured before the assent of all was asked; and whether he can say if the statement that two-thirds of the bonds of Egyptians loans now in circulation belong to Frenchmen is approximately correct?

No, Sir; the application was made simultaneously to the Governments of all the great Powers. There is no information in the Foreign Office showing the proportion of Egyptian bonds held by Frenchmen.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is aware that a troop of actors perform twice every Sunday in Hyde Park, attracting an audience by shouts of "Murder," and requesting and securing contributions before, during and after the dramatic performances which they render; and if these practices are in accord with the existing police regulations?

I am informed that character sketches and similar performances have been given in Hyde Park for many years past, and that in most cases collections are made by the performers. None of the performers, however, have been heard by the police to shout "Murder" for the purpose of attracting an audience. These practices do not appear to infringe any of the existing Park Regulations, which, I may add, are not Police Regulations, but are either statutory or are made by the Office of Works.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction there exists with regard to the compulsory declaration, to be made before a Justice of the Peace by friendly societies' officials as a preliminary to the registration by the Friendly Societies' Registry Office of amendments of rules; and, whether the Treasury will undertake either to make a new Treasury Regulation under the authority of Section 38 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, abolishing such declaration; or, if this course is not practicable, to amend the Oaths Act, or other Act dealing with this matter, so that this requirement may be done away with?

I am not aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction on this subject. There may, of course, be occasionally some difficulty in remote country places in the attendance of friendly societies' officials before a Justice of the Peace, but that cannot be considered as sufficient justification for the abolition of a regulation which is the only protection to the members of a friendly society against the registration of amendments not duly made by the society.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is in a position to say how soon after Easter he will submit his proposals for the development and extension of light railways in Ireland?

I am not yet in a position to assign any date to this Bill. I hope, however, that it will be read a second time before Whitsuntide. I desire to have the advantage of communication on the subject with the new Chairman of the Board of Works.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Roscommon (Mr. J. O'KELLY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he has inquired if any fund at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board is allocated to certain counties; (2) whether he is aware that, by Section 35 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, it is provided that the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund be placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board, with the condition that it should be applicable only in any county in which the fund was before the passing of that Act applicable; (3) could he state what was the amount of that fund applicable to the county of Roscommon; how much of it, and in what manner has it been expended; and (4) how much of the general fund of £1,500,000 from the Irish Church surplus entrusted to that Board has been expended in the county of Roscommon?

No fund and no moneys at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board are allocated according to counties or other territorial divisions. The provisions of the 35th Section of the Act of 1891 are correctly set forth in the Question, so far as they go, but it omits to state that the Reproductive Loan Fund was placed at the Board's disposal for the purposes of the Act generally, and not merely for the purposes of making loans, as formerly, under certain conditions. The hon. Member will see the position of this fund fully explained in the annual Reports of the Board which have been presented to Parliament. The total value of the fund when handed over to the Board was about £65,000; out of which a sum of £33,000 has been expended up to the present date. The expenditure has been mainly incurred in the construction of piers and boat-slips, and no portion of the fund was expended in county Roscommon. One of the counties to which the fund was applicable before it was handed over to the Board was Roscommon, but the fund was not apportioned in any way between the several counties concerned. As regards the last paragraph, no portion of the capital sum of the Church Surplus Grant has been expended in Roscommon or elsewhere, but the interest on that grant has been expended in the manner described in the annual Reports of the Board.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will consent to the Return relating to the Fee Grant (England, Ireland and Scotland) on the Paper for to-day; whether he is aware that the 18th Section and the Fourth Schedule of the Irish Education Act, 1892, lay upon the Commissioners of National Education the imperative duty of distributing the whole sum voted by Parliament as a fee grant among the teachers; and, whether the Commissioners have, nevertheless, returned in each year an unexpected balance to the Treasury?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am writing to the hon. Member for Londonderry suggesting a slight amendment in the proposed form of Return. On the amendment being made the Government will consent to the Return.

called attention to the last part of his Question.

was understood to say that an unexpended balance had been returned each year.

What is the opinion of the Treasury as to the legal question?

said, the hon. and learned Member must ask that question of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he intends to introduce the Irish Education Bill before Easter?

Not before Easter, but, I hope, shortly after the introduction of the Land Bill.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any notification from the French Government of a modification of the French Protectorate over Madagascar; and, if so, whether he can give a definite assurance that British Treaty rights, as guaranteed by the Declarations of 5th August 1890 will be maintained?

On February 11 Lord Salisbury received a note from the French Ambassador, stating that in consequence of difficulties that had arisen in the exercise of their Protectorate, the French Government had been forced to military intervention in Madagascar, and had been impelled to occupy the island and to take possession of it. It is understood that a similar note was addressed to the other Powers. Lord Dufferin was instructed to ask what was implied by this phrase. No reply has yet been received, but it is understood from a recent speech by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that a notification respecting the Treaties with Foreign Powers is about to be made by the French Government. Until this has been received and examined, it would be premature to make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the chairman of a parish meeting for the election of councilors for the parish of Pyworthy, Devon, on 9th March rejected the nomination of Mr. Coombe, a farmer of Pyworthy, on the ground that in the column requiring a statement as to whether a candidate was qualified as a parochial or a residential elector the word "both" was inserted; and whether this would be a case in which the County Council might, under the Local Government Bill, 1896, interfere?

I would suggest that, if the intervention of the County Council is desired, a full statement of the facts should be submitted to them, and I have no doubt that, if the County Council are of opinion that they are empowered to make any order in the matter, and that the circumstances are such that they can properly do so, they will take such action as the case may require. I have no authority, assuming that I were in full possession of the facts, to decide as to the powers which can be exercised by the County Council in the case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is now in a position to inform the House of his decision in regard to the construction of a jetty at Pembroke Dockyard, and as to affording other facilities for the finishing of vessels?

I am now able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the Admiralty have determined to carry out the plan for building a jetty at Pembroke Dockyard which was discussed in the last Parliament. The cost will be between £80,000 and £90,000. Progress will be made with the work in the course of the coming financial year.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the proposal for a special pension to His Royal Highness, the late Commander-in-Chief is made with the concurrence of His Royal Highness; whether any intimation has been received by the Government that His Royal Highness does not intend to avail himself of the proposed provision; and, whether the Government have any intention of withdrawing the proposal for a special pension.

, said, I have no information to give the House or to the hon. Gentleman on this subject in addition to the answer I have previously given to a Question on the same matter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in regard to his previous answers no question was put to him as to whether the Government was going to proceed with the matter. Are the Government going to withdraw the pension?

Sir, I am afraid I have nothing to add.

asked the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he still proposed that the Vote on Account should be the Second Order on Friday, and whether in that case arrangements might be made to bring it on at a earlier hour than had been proposed.

said that when the House adjourned on the previous night there had been some exception taken to the suggestion that the Debate on the previous matter should be adjourned at half-past nine, and the conclusion of the Debate on the Vote of Account taken between half-past nine and twelve o'clock. He had then said that he was desirous of meeting in every way he could the views of the House, and that he would make the adjournment at seven o'clock instead of at half-past nine, on the understanding that no difficulty was made as as to the conclusion of the Debate.

called attention to the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, and moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of the administration of the Fair Wages Resolution of February 1891. Of the new departure which was taken in 1891 they had now had some experience, both as regarded the administration and the interpretation of the Resolution, which had been somewhat vaguely worded. There had been a large number of complaints from many of the working classes, and especially from the trade unionists throughout the country as to its administration and interpretation. If those complaints were well founded a remedy ought to be found, and it ought to be known publicly whether the Departments were administering the Resolution properly. He understood that the Government were practically prepared to accept this Committee, but invited discussion of the matter. Five years ago, when he moved the Resolution, he had been able to show, he believed to the satisfaction of the House, that the new departure would be in the best interests of the community, the employers, and the workmen. The principle of the trade unionists was not to undersell each other, and they had been largely debarred in the past from taking Government contracts. Since 1891 they had had extensions of the principle of the Resolution. Two years ago, the then Government, on complaints being made that certain men were excluded from work on the ground that they were trade unionists, came to the conclusion that in regard to Government contracts no preference should be shown as between unionists and non-unionists. In his view no class of the community would grudge the cost necessary for carrying out the principle of fair employment. What had been the result of the experience of the working of the principle of the Resolution during the last five years? It had unquestionably shown that a great deal of good had been done in the direction intended in regard to certain classes of labour, and he should like the House to understand that in bringing forward this Motion on that occasion he had no desire to censure any Department of the Government. Under the old system the course taken was a very simple one, because the lowest tender was usually accepted without any condition being made as to the terms upon which the workers employed in carrying out the contract were to be treated. That system had given rise to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction on the part of certain persons employed in particular classes of labour, who complained of the way in which the Resolution was administered. The question, no doubt, was beset with difficulties, but they were difficulties which might and ought to be overcome. In his view the chief advantage of the appointment of a Committee would be to smooth down those difficulties, and to place the principle laid down in the Resolution upon a firmer basis, so that it should be more fairly administered in the future than it had been in the past. There had been a lack of uniformity in the administration of the principle of the Resolution by the different Departments. As the mover of the Resolution of 1891, he had received a large number of complaints during the past few years, and he desired to bear witness to the great for bearance and consideration which the Departments had shown with regard to those complaints, and to the attention which they had given to the subjects of those complaints. He had no intention of going into the particulars, of those complaints upon that occasion—it would be time enough for him to do so when the Committee for which he asked was appointed. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend who had undertaken to second his Motion would give the House some instances which would show that there was some foundation for the complaints to which he had referred. The complaints had come from almost every class of labour employed by Government contractors, from persons engaged in the building, printing, engineering, shipbuilding, clothing, accoutrements, and other trades. The nature of the complaints was that in spite of the Resolution, the Government contracts were frequently given to notoriously unfair houses—that where it had been agreed that a certain rate of wages should be paid it was not paid, that the conditions of work with regard to hours and overtime were such that the best workmen, and especially trade unionists, could not accept employment under Government contractors, that unskilled labour was employed instead of skilled labour, and that where it had been agreed that work should be done by hand it was executed by machinery. There was also much dissatisfaction with regard to the mode in which all inquiries were conducted by the Departments, some complaining that their cases were only partly investigated, others that their complaints were ignored or almost so, while again others lamented the delay that had occurred in investigating their complaints, which had been so protracted that the decision was not given until the contract had terminated and there was no opportunity for reopening the questions raised. For some of those complaints no doubt there had been little or no foundation, and no suggestion had been made that there was a want, of courtesy or of attention on the part of any of the Departments. He had attempted to lay before the House the nature of the complaints that had been made. He by no means endorsed those complaints, but he had referred to their existence as a ground for his suggestion that a Committee ought to be appointed. The appointment of such a Committee would give general satisfaction, and would enable it to be ascertained whether any remedies could be found for the grievances which had been put forward if they existed at all, because it was quite possible that in many cases the complaints were unfounded. A question had arisen as to whether there had not been an evasion of the spirit of the Resolution. There was a great want of uniformity in the way the Resolution was administered in the different Departments, and he believed that the appointment of the Committee would bring the different Departments together, and, by drawing attention to the Resolution, secure greater uniformity in its administration, and to have an authoritative interpretation as to its meaning. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had lately made an alteration in the wav in which contracts concerning his Department should in future be issued to persons tendering. The Resolution, in effect, pointed out that it was the duty of the Government in all Government contracts to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as were generally accepted and current in the district where the work was to be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, had, in the exercise of his discretion, omitted from the terms of the Admiralty contracts the words "current it; the district where the work is to be carried out." That alteration, in his view, involved a departure from the principle which the House had laid down in the Resolution of 1891. In his opinion that alteration had been made in view of certain matters connected with the shipbuilding operations upon the Thames. To his mind, this question of the words in Government contracts had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of shipbuilding on the Thames. As far as firms interested in shipbuilding on the Thames were concerned, they already paid the current rate in the district, and therefore no Resolution was necessary to force them to pay it. He wanted to discuss this simply from the point of view of the fair-wages Resolution of 1891, and the interpretation that ought to be put upon it. The right hon. Gentleman, in his letter explaining the action he had taken, said that while he adhered to the letter of the Resolution, the words in Admiralty contracts were an amplification of the Resolution of 1891. It was true that they were additional words, but he denied that they were in any sense an amplification. The words used were that the wages paid should be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen. In a certain sense, he admitted, that form of words did obey the Resolution: but they must be read in the light of the Debate that took place, and must be looked at from a common-sense point of view. The object of the House was certainly not that the Government of the day should in any sense fix the rate of wages, but that they ought to recognise existing rates of wages. To his mind, if all Government Departments put upon the Resolution the interpretation put on it by the Admiralty, the Resolution would practically be a dead letter altogether. There was no general current rate of wages throughout any trade in the country, but there was a district rate. He would venture to read a passage from the speech he made in 1891 in moving the Resolution upon this point. He said then:—

"No one proposes or desires that the Government should fix the rate of wages. All that is asked is, that the Government should accept as fair wages those rates of wages which prevail in any particular trade—the rate that has been fixed by negotiation between employers and workmen. There is no mystery about this matter. A standard rate of wages, for the time being, prevails in every large trade, and it is perfectly well known. They are recognised on the one side as fair by the representatives of the men, and on the other paid without demur by all good employers."

"It is trade prices, not trade-union prices, of which I have been speaking—prices indeed accepted as fair by trade unionists, as for the moment all they can get, though not necessarily all they could desire."

in seconding the Resolution, said, that his hon. Friend had taken a very great interest in this question and had done a great deal to secure for the men employed on Government contracts fair conditions of labour and fair wages. Five years ago he had had the honour of seconding a Resolution on the same subject, moved by his hon. Friend, who persuaded the House to declare on that occasion that it was the duty of the Government to take steps to remedy the evils revealed by the House of Lords' Inquiry on sweating, and the abuses of sub-letting contracts; and to secure for workmen engaged on such contracts the wages current in such trades for competent workmen. That was in 1891. He wished to associate himself with the statement this Resolution was in no sense a Party Resolution; but he saw that the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, in a letter to the Sheffield Telegraph, declared that there was a Party object behind the Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member proclaimed himself an ardent supporter of the fair wages Resolution of 1891; but he expressed his amazement that the proposers of this Resolution should not be able to see that the placing of orders in foreign countries would defeat it absolutely. What could that mean but that, by insisting on the Government carrying out the fair wages Resolution in its entirety, the upholders of the Resolution were likely to compel the Government to give out the contracts to foreign firms. He refused to believe that the present Government, at all events, were at all likely to give their contracts to the foreigner at the expense of our own workmen. The vague and indefinite terms in which the Resolution of 1891 was framed had led to confusion in its administration. The chief difficulties which had arisen were in consequence of differences of opinion as to the interpretation to be placed on the words "wages current in each trade. Were they the wages demanded by the trade union, or the average wages of the district; or the wages which the individual contractor had been accustomed to pay for similar work? They were entitled to assume that the Government were going to grant the Committee of Inquiry asked for; and he would suggest that it should be an Instruction to the Committee not only to define the phrase "current rate of wages" but also to find some more efficient method of administering the Resolution. At present everything was left to the vigilance and energy of the trade union officials. Complaints might be made to the Department concerned in some contract work; a long correspondence between the representatives of the trade and the officials of the Department ensued: and although a real grievance existed, the contract might expire before any remedy was attempted. There was a case which he had brought before the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who practically admitted the facts.

No, I did not admit the facts. I said I could not accept them, but would cause inquiries to be made.

, continuing, said that inquiries would substantiate the following facts. In a contract for painting at the Victoria Barrack, Belfast, the men were paid something like one penny per hour below the wages to which they were entitled. Complaint was made to the War Office on the 3rd September, 1895; and correspondence between the Department and the secretary of the trade union continued up to December 7th. Then a representative of the Department was sent down to personally superintend the payment of the workmen's wages, and while this gentleman was present the men were paid 7½d. per hour instead of 6½d. as previously. But when the representative of the War Office had gone, the men were requested, under threat of dismissal, to refund the additional money paid to them. One man refused, and wrote to the Inspector, who wrote to the War Office; and the contractor was requested to pay the money. But that was only done after repeated calls at the War Office had been made, and process for recovery had been threatened against the contractor. Such questions ought not to be left to the trade unions, and a speedier method of settling these complaints ought to be devised. In 1894, at Aldershot, the carpenters employed on a Government contract were paid less than they ought to have been paid. Complaint was made to the War Office, and the Secretary of State replied that after careful inquiry he was advised that the complaint could not be sustained. The secretary of the trade union paid a surprise visit to Aldershot, and obtained certain facts which he brought to the notice of the Department. A second inquiry was instituted; the workmen's case was proved; and the contractor was compelled to refund the whole of the money wrongfully deducted from the men's wages. They ought to have some more satisfactory and expeditious method of settling these questions than existed at present. There were various ways in which that might be done. His hon. Friend had suggested that the Labour Department of the Board of Trade might be entrusted with the duty of inquiring into grievances arising under the fair wages Resolution; and there was an even more expeditious method. Sir R. Cross, now Lord Cross, when Home Secretary, instructed his inspectors to receive and inquire into notifications of grievances arising under the Factories and Mines Acts, and even to take cognisance of anonymous communications. That precedent, he submitted, might well be followed in the present case. And another experiment might be made, and that was to intrust contracts, not of an extensive nature, to associated bodies of workmen. That had already been done in Italy, as a gentleman connected with the Italian Treasury, and a Member of the Legislature, recently informed him, with marked success. He hoped it might be possible for the Government to give such an Instruction to the Committee as would enable them to allow associated bodies of working men to be entered upon the list of contractors, and particularly in cases where no large amount of capital was required in the way of plant and machinery, and if that were done he thought that, useful as the Resolution of the House had been in the last five years, it would be still more useful in the years to come.

I am sure the Government cannot for a moment complain of the tone of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. They were marked by an entire absence of anything like Party animus, and at the same time by a fair disposition to recognise the difficulties of the question. I only hope the same attitude will be observed out of the House, because it has come to my knowledge that the change which as an administrator I made in regard to the Admiralty contracts has been very widely made use of in the country to stigmatise the Party to which I belong as being desirous to lower the wages of the working classes. With reference to the point made by the hon. Member who Seconded the Resolution, that the Instruction to the Committee, which the Government are quite prepared to grant, should be such as would allow an inquiry into whether Governments have power to intrust their, contracts to associated bodies of working men, I may say that such an Instruction is not necessary. Not only have Government Departments power to do so now, but it is actually done. ["Hear, hear!"] In connection both with the War Office and the Admrialty, contracts are at present given exactly in the sense and in the spirit which is desired. On that point, therefore, we are entirely agreed. Before I enter on the general question, I may be permitted to explain both the motive and the possible effect of the change which on my responsibility I made with reference to the words "current in the district" in some Admiralty contracts. The change has been made with reference, to large contracts for shipbuilding and engineering; it has not been universally introduced into other contracts. I wish to point; out that these words were not in the original Resolution of the House of Commons. I have received circulars and letters of remonstrance from I do not know how many bodies charging me with having tampered with the Resolution of the House of Commons. The machinery for propagating error are singularly effective, and these remonstrance bear a strong family likeness. [Laughter.] Now, what happened? It was alleged and brought to my notice that as we insisted on the contractors paying the current wages of the district—namely, London, and as wages in London were 15 per cent, higher than elsewhere, the logical corollary of the insertion of the words was to assign to London contractors more favourable terms than were conceded to contractors in the country. The question was whether, in order to make certain that a London contractor should pay those wages, we were to increase the burden on the taxpayers by 15 per cent. upon the labour employed. To assent to such a proposition was an utter impossibility. [Cheers.] How could we say—We insist upon your paying those wages and at the same time by that very process prevent you from competing on equal terms with the rest of the country? It is said that whether the words are in or out does not make much difference, because the contractors would pay the same wages. London contractors, however, used the argument that they must have more favourable terms because those words were in. The late Govern- ment resisted that view as strongly as we did, and I hope the House will take that into consideration if they reinsert the words "current in the district." If those words are introduced I trust that it will be made equally clear that no liability is imposed on the Administration to take such a feature into consideration in some of the contracts. I admit the desire that we should have as large an area for the production of our ironclads and other ships as we can secure. I hope the House will agree that it is my duty to look at this matter as a Minister, and to try and put aside the difficulties with which we may be confronted. But at the same time I say that the Committee must be extremely careful in any new definition and any additions that it does not practically limit the productive powers of the country by dividing them too much up into districts. One motive which induced me to omit those words was this. It is not only in the shipbuilding, but in the engineering and boiler trades that London is deeply interested. I think that the high wages which have prevailed in London have diminished work on the Thames to an extraordinary extent. It may be said that is not our affair, but, as a Metropolitan Member, I deeply regret it. I think all those in control of this matter must be aware that, while on the one hand they do their best to maintain the wage they think a right; wage for a particular trade, on the other hand they should not push their theory: to a point which may deprive London of some of its great industries. [Cheers.] In the shipbuilding trade there is only one great firm for ironclads, and there are famous firms for smaller vessels. In the engineering trade London still—I may say, to my own satisfaction has a very large share. ["Hear, hear!"] London is still represented by three great firms—Messrs. Penn, Messrs. Humphrey, and Messrs. Maudslay. [A VOICE: "Thornycroft."] Messrs. Thornycroft are constructors of boilers as well as of ships, but on a smaller scale. They do not compete with the large ironclads of the largest firms. Now, these three firms are bringing to London, or keeping in London, an immense amount of work. They are denounced, and have been denounced for two years past, for not complying with the Resolution of the House of Commons, and powerful representations have been made that those firms should be struck off the list of Government contractors. This demand has been made in connection with the Resolution of 1891. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have had those representations made to them as far back as 1894; we have had them made to us; and the movement does not come from those who are employed by those firms, but from outside influences. [Cheers.] A resolution passed at the Trade Union Congress at Cardiff condemns the Government for persistently refusing to carry out the fair wages Resolution passed by the House of Commons in February 1891, and especially condemns their action in maintaining on their list of contractors and in extensively employing certain notorious "blackleg" firms in the London district whose trade characters are perfectly well known to the Government; and they ask to have those firms either struck off the list of Admiralty contractors or compelled to pay the wages of the London district. Those are some of the difficulties with which we are confronted, and I place those considerations before the House. What is the penalty by which we are to enforce compliance? There is one of the weaknesses which I hope the Committee will inquire into and one of the difficulties of the Resolution. It is said that we are to penalise the firms; but some of the firms are rendering the greatest public service we can demand, and if we struck them off the list our action would cause loss to the productive power of London; and if this Resolution was carried out the boiler and engineering trades would lose to as great an extent as the shipbuilding trade. [Cheers.] I submit that those are considerations which ought to be taken into account. When I deleted the words "current in the district" from our forms of contract I had in my mind not to be a party to the maintaining of words which might be quoted in this controversy which was going on from striking off those great firms from our Admiralty list. There was a deputation received by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty who again strongly urged that in consequence of failure to meet the Resolution of the House of Commons those firms should be struck off. A resolution was passed at the Executive Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades to the effect that they should be instructed to take whatever steps might be deemed advisable to influence the Government to strike those firms off the list of the Admiralty, or compel them to conform to the Resolution of the House of Commons. Messrs. Penn, Messrs. Humphrey, and Messrs. Maudslay were mentioned as firms who paid below the standard rate. What is the district standard? Who sets it? [Cheers.] The Admiralty deny that those firms are below the district standard, because they establish a standard for themselves. When you have a great trade how many firms are there who are engaged in the same work who are paying different wages? If all the great firms employ labour on one particular form of battleship, or one particular kind of engines and boilers, and pay a fair wage which their own employés are satisfied with—who lays down the standard rate which is to be the rate? [Cheers.] I asked the deputation which I received, "Who lays down the rate?" A member of the deputation said that he represented the trade union and candidly said "The trade union." He was thus contradicting the hon. Gentleman who said that these wages were fixed between the employers and the employed, and it is the outside influences which are endeavouring to act in the way I have described. [Cheers.] I entirely acknowledge the extreme difficulty of working this Resolution, and the Government cordially accept the Committee to inquire into the matter. We should place all the difficulties of the case before them, and I hope that some means may be found to meet and to remedy some of the difficulties. We will approach the inquiry in a spirit which desires to carry out that which we believe to be the unanimous feeling of the House; but, at the same time, I wished to interpose in the Debate in order [that it should be realised that it is not a simple matter, and that it is not a question of easy definition. While the House should be favouraole to the spirit in which the original Resolution is conceived and to see it carried out, I trust it will not aggravate those difficulties and not attempt to remove them by any further stringency of construction. I hold the opinion that the precise laying down of definitions will be absolutely impossible. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland quoted the words "What is a competent workman?" I believe the trade unions and other bodies differ very much in their definition of "competent workman." Then there is the great question of area, of district; and according as we draw the district there you will find whether wages are paid as current in the district or not. To reconstruct the areas for trade; union purposes would be as difficult as the redistribution of political power in the representation of this House. Every difference of area would certainly make a variation in the rate which, according to the views of some persons, ought to be paid. It was said that the Resolution was vague. It was vague because the subject matter with which it deals must leave it vague. There, is only one way in which this Resolution, in my judgment, can be made fairly to work—namely, the existence of a disposition on both sides to work it fairly according to its general spirit. [Cheers.] Many complaints do not come from the parties mainly interested—namely, the people enjoying the wages, but from other bodies who interpose; and I have had representations from pattern-makers in Scotland complaining of the wages given to pattern-makers in London. There are bodies all over the country who strive to establish themselves as arbiters in these matters. Four-fifths of the complaints that have reached the Admiralty have come from trade organisations. In only one case has the complaint come from workmen actually employed, and in one case it was made by a dismissed workman. Attention has been drawn to the fact that there has been delay in dealing with some of these complaints. At the Admiralty one cause of the delay has been the desire of some of us who are officially responsible to inquire into these cases ourselves. ["Hear, hear!"] When the head of a Department is to give close attention to an allegation that contractors pay insufficient wages to some of their workmen, perhaps only three or four of them, he must, of course, select some opportune moment in which to do so. To insist that inquiries of this kind should be made at once might result in paralysing for a time the activity of a Department in connection with more serious matters. It is often difficult to find time to devote to the consideration of great questions. Many suggestions have been made with a view to expedite the settlement of these complaints. One suggestion is that the services of the Labour Department should be called in, and another that inspectors should be employed. On those proposals I will not venture to pronounce off-hand. The Government are prepared to accept this Resolution in the spirit in which it is moved, but I trust there will be no attempt in the Committee to construct a mass of definitions, no attempt to tie our hands and to restrict the contractual freedom which the Admiralty and other Departments must have, and that care will be taken not to imperil any industries from a desire to maintain what are called standard wages, which sometimes remain standard wages without benefit to the workmen themselves. By striving after an impossible ideal we might deprive thousands of working men of the employment which they would otherwise have. I will conclude by saying that I hope that the outcome of this Resolution will be satisfactory to its promoters, whilst leaving unimpaired the efficiency of our great Administrative Departments. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he regretted that the First Lord of the Admiralty did not conclude his speech after the first ten minutes, because in the latter part of his remarks he made a new departure and gave a new importance to the subject before the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not confine himself to the Motion, but went on to discuss the principle of the right of particular firms to establish a certain rate of wage. He stated that it was through insistence upon a certain rate of wages that the work of shipbuilding was driven from the Thames. He had heard similar statements for the last 25 years, and the reply to them was that if coal and iron in the raw condition were as accessible to the Thames as they were to the Clyde and the Tyne the trade on the Thames would not have been diverted. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to point out that it was necessary for the Government to keep on their list, regardless of the question of the rate of wages, a reserve of firms so as to be able to meet any emergency in the pressure of work. That was a general proposition to which it was difficult to object, especially in the form in which the right hon. Gentleman put it, but when he went on to state that those firms were so eminent in the trade that they themselves had the right to fix a standard wage of their own he altogether differed from him. [Mr. MACARTNEY: "No, no."] That was what the right hon. Gentleman said, and it was that to which he objected—that any particular firm or firms in the country should be recognised as having the right to dictate a rate of wage independent of the standard wages paid by other firms in the same trade and in the same locality. It was precisely this contention against which the trade unions had fought, and would continue to fight as long as it was necessary.

said, he thought the hon. Member had unintentionally misrepresented the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the firms alluded to were the only firms carrying on business on the same standard and of the same quality in the particular district; that there were no competing firms of the same trade in the district. ["Hear, hear!"]

And he added the remark that those firms fixed a rate of wages of their own. It was that remark which had raised the whole controversy. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say further that the complaints of the workpeople affected by the non-observance of the fair-trade Resolution reached the Department from others than the aggrieved persons themselves. That, no doubt, was true. For the last ten years or more, since he first initiated the movement in the Stationery Department he had been in almost constant communication with the official Departments on the matter, and therefore he presumed that he was one of the persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. The right hon. Gentleman referred to having received complaints from the trade union secretary in Scotland about wages and other conditions of labour in London. Of course, the general secretary, although he might happen to be in Scotland, was the proper person to make a complaint about anything from which a workman suffered. The complaint made by the first Lord raised the whole question of the right of trade union officials to act for their members. It had always been asserted by the antitrade-union section of the community that each person aggrieved should go direct to the employer; but if those who so argued were workmen themselves they would tell a very different tale. He had no doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty himself had workmen upon his estate, and he had also no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman wished to communicate his wishes or instructions to those people he would do so through his agent, and not personally. Whatever right an employer or a property-owner possessed in such a matter the workman claimed and would assert a similar right in respect of his labour. Passing from the question of ironclads, boilers, and the like, he came to a matter in which his own constituents were concerned. The men engaged in the soft goods trade complained that the Government Departments—chiefly, he feared, the War Office—accepted estimates for work which was not good work, not good in the interest of those who bought, of those who wore, and of those engaged in the trade; that they paid a price at which the fair house and the good employer, who paid the recognised wages to men, women, and children, could not supply goods for. [Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS: "No, no."] That was the allegation, and he hoped in a very short time to be able to supply the hon. Gentleman with all the particulars. He believed the same statement applied to other industries.