I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that, in addition to the doubling of the bounties upon the manufacture of beet sugar in Germany, Austria and France propose to take similar steps, and thus inflict further injury upon the sugar industries of the West Indies and Australia, and the Colonial firms engaged in the trade; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, or propose to take, to obtain the abolition of a bounty fed competition with the industries of Her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom and the Colonies?

It is believed that the Governments of Austria and France are considering steps in consequence of the recent increase of Sugar Bounties in Germany. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present moment to take the initiative in any steps with regard to the abolition of the Bounty system.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, will he state what number of lives were lost in coal mines during each of the years 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895, and the first six months of 1896, from explosions of various kinds?

The numbers are: In 1890, 319; in 1891, 76; in 1892, 146; in 1893, 175; in 1894, 329; in 1895, 76; in the first six months of 1896, 169.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it would be possible to inform the House on how many days in the course of any given year the Mediterranean Squadron, or divisions of it, have been at sea as fleets?

The information suggested by the right hon. Baronet could not be extracted from the Journals of the Commander-in-Chief without much labour and trouble. I can assure the right hon. Member that the Admiralty are quite satisfied that the Mediterranean Fleet is sufficiently and thoroughly exercised and tested at sea by the Commander-in-Chief, who, with his whole squadron, makes yearly two cruises extending over several months; in addition to which, for the remainder of the year, a division of the Fleet has been continuously employed in cruising. During the last 12 months, I should add, the movements of the Fleet have necessarily been much influenced by considerations of foreign policy.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from the Bombay Presidency Association against the appointment of Mr. C. N. Macleod, barrister-at-law, to be second Judge of the Bombay Small Cause Court, and what his decision on that memorial has been; whether under the Secretary of State's Dispatch of 12th September 1889, a barrister, in order to hold this post, must be of ten years' standing, and possess a thorough knowledge of the vernacular languages; and whether Mr. Macleod possesses these qualifications; whether the Secretary of State has issued any unpublished instructions modifying the Dispatch of September 1889; and if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House; whether the appointment of Mr. Macleod involves the supersession of Mr. Cursetjee, the third Judge, a barrister of 26 years' standing, who has served as a Judge for 22 years, and has acted as first Judge of the Court on three occasions; and whether, seeing that the fourth and fifth Judges, who are also superseded, are officers of experience and long standing, the Secretary of State will veto the appointment of Mr. Macleod?

I have received no memorial against the appointment of Mr. Macleod to the Bombay Small Cause Court. It was decided by the Secretary of State in Council, in compliance with the prayer of a memorial, which had the support of the Government of India and of the Government of Bombay, that the restrictions laid down for the Provincial Service in the Dispatch of 12th September, 1889, should not apply to this office. That decision was conveyed in a Dispatch dated August 25th 1892; and I shall be ready to lay the correspondence on the Table if the hon. Member will move for it. The appointment is by law within the discretion of the Government of Bombay; and I cannot admit that the fact of certain gentlemen having already served as Judges gives them a claim in preference to any other person who, in the opinion of the Government, may possess higher qualifications.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is now in a position to state whether the landlord of the Island of North Uist, Inverness-shire, has yet agreed to allow the sheriff substitute and procurator fiscal at Lochmaddy residence there; and, if not whether arrangements will be made to enable these officials to secure residence in the island?

I am glad to be able to inform the hon. Member, so far as the sheriff substitute is concerned, that a lease is now under adjustment; but I am unable to say the same as regards the procurator fiscal. It is to be hoped that the proprietor and the procurator fiscal may eventually arrange the matter in a friendly way, but no power exists to compel proprietors to grant feus or leases to public officials.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—(1) whether French subjects having mercantile transactions in or with British Colonies and Dependencies enjoy all the rights and privileges of British subjects; (2) whether the conversion of the Protectorate of Madagascar into a Colony will bring that island under the protective tariff of France, imposing commercial disadvantages on British merchants; (3) whether any representation has been addressed to the French Government against the character of the proposed arrangement; and (4) whether, when an intimation was given that France would be allowed a free hand in Madagascar, any stipulation or reservation was made with regard to British commercial rights?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The suggestion in the second paragraph is the contention that has been put forward by the French Government. Representations have been addressed to them, and the matter is still under discussion between the two Governments. The hon. Member will find a reply to his fourth question in the terms of the Anglo-French Declaration—relating to Zanzibar—of August, 1890.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has received a representation from the National Federal Council of Scotland for Women's Trades, stating that there are over 556,000 women engaged in specific employments in Scotland, and in view of the differences in industrial conditions between England and Scotland, it is desirable a special lady Labour Correspondent to the Board of Trade should be appointed for Scotland; and, whether he will consider the expediency of making such an appointment?

I have received the representation referred to. It is not desirable that the duties of any of the permanent officials of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade should be limited to particular geographical areas. There is at present an efficient lady Labour Correspondent, able to investigate such subjects needing inquiry in Scotland or elsewhere as falls within the province of the Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it will be possible, if the Coal Mines Regulation Act (1887) Amendment (No. 2) Bill should fail to pass, to frame new special rules under the Act of 1887, dealing with some or all of the matters specified in Clause 1 of the Bill in such a way that they will not be inconsistent with the general rules in Section 49 of the Act of 1887?

I am advised that it is very doubtful whether it would be legally possible to enforce by special rules some of the precautions which the inspectors deem essential without the power which is proposed to be given in Clause 1 of the Bill.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has as yet ascertained with whom the power rests for limiting the number of ladies visiting the Terrace; if he is aware that recently the numbers were so many that the western end of the Terrace was temporarily annexed; and whether some arrangement could be made permitting the admission to the Terrace of those ladies who have seats in the Ladies' Gallery, and in addition an equal number who shall have secured orders through Members securing them by ballot, and similar to the system now obtaining for the Ladies' Gallery?

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer No. 37 at the same time. Further, I should like to ask him whether he could not arrange that the Crypt should be opened, so that the hon. Member for Mid Cork and his friends, who cannot bear to see ladies having tea on the Terrace, might retire there to indulge in meditation and prayer?

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether, before any change is made in the direction suggested by the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, which would limit or in any way interfere with the existing privileges of Members of the House to take lady friends to the Terrace, an opportunity will be afforded of taking the opinion of the House by a vote on the question?

The question of the admission of ladies to the Terrace rests entirely with the authorities of the House. I am aware that the southwestern end of the Terrace is often unduly crowded. I understand that the whole matter will be considered by the authorities of the House between this time and next year, and that if any new rule is made, it will not come into force until next Session. In reply to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, I would point out that he will have an opportunity of raising the question on the Estimates, Class 2, Vote 2, or on the Appropriation Bill.

Is it the fact, as reported last week, that, in consequence of the overcrowding of some of the passages leading to the Terrace, several hon. Members were not able to vote?

I had several complaints on the day in question that the Terrace was unduly crowded.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) under whose trusteeship or control the Courthouse at Newbliss, County Monaghan, is placed; (2) is he aware that it is occasionally devoted to the uses of an Orange Lodge, and that on certain anniversaries Orange flags and emblems are displayed from its windows; and (3) whether it is in accordance with the law to use a public building for demonstrations of a distinctly party character?

The building in which the Newbliss Petty Sessions are held is the property of Mrs. Murray Kerr. One of the rooms of this building is used for the purposes of Petty Sessions, and this room has never been devoted to the uses of an Orange Lodge, nor have flags or emblems ever been displayed from it, though another room has been so utilised on certain occasions. Under these circumstances the question raised in the third paragraph does not arise in the present instance.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the serious extent to which salmon disease is prevalent in the Taw and Torridge; and, whether he can assist the local authorities by sending down an expert from the Board of Trade to report upon the outbreak, and to advise as to the best method of dealing with it?

I am aware that salmon disease has lately prevailed in the River Torridge, but the epidemic does not appear to present any unusual features. It usually disappears in the summer, and, as an Inspector has already been directed to visit the fishery district on another matter as soon as his arrangements will permit, he will have an opportunity of conferring with the Conservators on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether telephonic communication between Lundy Island and the mainland has been interrupted; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the cable repaired at the earliest possible moment?

The cable is under the control of the Postmaster General, who informs me that it has been repaired and is now in working order.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that general dissatisfaction exists among the veterinary profession throughout the country in consequence of the suppression of the Veterinary Department as originally constituted under the Board; whether protests from the profession and many leading agriculturists have been repeatedly made since the change; and whether, inasmuch as the Department is dependent upon the cordial assistance and co-operation of the veterinary profession in all parts of the country in order to successfully grapple with the various diseases to which the live stock of this country is liable, he will take steps to re-establish the Veterinary Department, under the responsible control and supervision of veterinary professors having the confidence of the profession generally?

I am aware that the veterinary profession generally is in favour of the arrangement of business adopted prior to the retirement of Professor Brown at the end of the year 1893, but I cannot admit that the reorganisation which then took place can properly be described as the suppression of the Veterinary Department, or that any real ground for complaint exists with regard to the status assigned to our veterinary officers. As the hon. Member is aware, from the replies given to previous Questions put by him on this subject, the status of those officers is identical with that usually given to the professional advisers of public Departments; but I recognise that there has been some misunderstanding on the subject, and, as I am most anxious to give full expression to our indebtedness to the veterinary profession, I have arranged that the Veterinary Department shall be. given a separate place in the list of the Departments of the Board—subject, of course, to the condition that the status of the other officers concerned is not thereby affected.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the late Postmaster General, Mr. Arnold Morley, not long before quitting office, wrote to the hon. Member for Canterbury, agreeing to his request that the word "by" might in future be omitted in the phrase "by post" or "by train," inserted as a direction for the mode of delivery of a telegram; and that the concessions thus announced as duly embodied in the regulations in the "Post Office Guide," and still appears therein; and will he explain why, nevertheless, the regulations printed on the backs of telegram forms continue to demand the insertion of the word "by" in the directions referred to; whether he is aware that at the Charles Street Post Office, in the south western district, on the 26th ult., a clerk insisted on the insertion of the word by" before the word "post" in inserting such a direction in a telegram, and on charging for the extra word, notwithstanding Mr. Arnold Morley's express promise, and the existence of a regulation founded on that promise; and whether he will take measures for embodying the regulation which now appears in the "Post Office Guide," also in those printed on telegram forms, and for insuring that it shall be strictly observed for the future?

The Postmaster General is aware that his predecessor in office agreed to the omission of the word "by" from the instruction "by post" or "by train" in connection with the mode of delivery of a telegram, and he regrets to find that the alteration has not been carried out on the back of the telegram form. He has given Instructions for the alteration to be made in the next reprint of the forms, and for a notice of the subject to be issued to the staff generally. The Postmaster General is not aware of the Charles Street incident to which the hon. Member refers, but he will have inquiry made and the staff of that office instructed on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the reports in the papers of the adoption by the Upper Chamber of the Cape Parliament of a Resolution calling upon the Government of the Colony to approach the Imperial Government to ask them to extend to the Irish treason-felony prisoners similar clemency to that extended by President Kruger to the Reform Leaders; whether he is aware that this Resolution was supported by the Attorney General on behalf of the Cape Government, and adopted unanimously; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have as yet received any representations of the nature indicated from the Cape Government?

I have not yet received any official information on the subject to which the Question relates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of Ballylanders and adjoining districts in county Limerick, complaining of the inconvenience caused by the dispatch of mails at 1 o'clock p.m. on Sundays, and asking that the Sunday mails be dispatched at 6 o'clock p.m., the same as on week days; whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Herbertstown, Hospital, and Elton are also inconvenienced by the early dispatch of the Sunday mails, and desire a change to the hours of dispatch on week days; whether he is aware that these early dispatches on Sundays are also inconvenient to the men engaged in conveying the various mails from the places named be Knocklong to catch the mail trains, because they are occupied during the best part of Sunday, which they might spend with their families; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will cause the hour of departure on Sundays from the several places named to be changed to the week day hours.

No such petition has been received, but inquiry is being made on the subject, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the shares in Arthur Guinness and Company, Limited (the entire property of which is situate in Ireland, and the major portion of the profits made there), owned by a person living in and domiciled in Ireland, are considered assets of such person (after death) situate in England: whether in such case the executors or administrators of such deceased Irish holder of such shares are obliged to go to the trouble and expense of having a grant of probate or administration resealed in England before they can deal with or dispose of such shares; and, whether the Income Tax paid upon the profits of Arthur Guinness and Company, Limited, is placed to the credit of England and not of Ireland; and, if so, whether he intends to make any changes in these matters?

The Company is registered in England under the Companies' Acts 1862 to 1883. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company provide that the registered offices of the Company shall be situate in London. Shares in the Company are, therefore, assets in England whatever may be the domicile or place of abode of the deceased owner of the shares. Consequently, the grant of representation in Ireland must be resealed in England. The Income Tax assessment on the profits of the Company is made in Dublin, the Duty paid there, and the amount placed to the credit of Ireland. In these circumstances, I do not think any change is required.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, (1) whether he can explain who is responsible for, and what are the causes of delay in, the Chancery Redemption suit of Reade v. Purcell (Kilkenny), now 27 years pending; (2) whether he is a ware that several of the plaintiffs in the case, who were tenants on the estate, and who were evicted for non-payment of one year's rent some years ago, have since died in the workhouse, and that others surviving are destitute; (3) what is the annual rental of the estate; (4) who is the receiver, and what is the cost per annum of administering the estate by the Court of Chancery; and, (5) whether he will take steps to have the suit of Reade v. Purcell brought to trial at once?

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the facts are as follows: An Order was made in the suit by the Vice Chancellor in the year 1871, referring it to the Land Judge to appoint a receiver over the estate. The receiver was in due course appointed, and has been since in receipt of the rent. In 1883 a petition for sale was presented to the Land Judge Court, but no sale has as yet taken place, and until it has been effected the suit cannot be wound up. I am unable to obtain any precise information on the matters mentioned in the second paragraph of the question. In reply to the third paragraph, I beg to say that the annual rental of the estate is £384. 3s. 0d., and the entire sum collected last year for rent and arrears was £416. 3s. 0d., the receiver's fees and costs for collecting which were £28. 17s. 11d. The Executive are in no way responsible for this delay, and have no power to interfere to accelerate the proceedings. According to the practice of the Court, the parties interested have the remedy in their own hands. They can bring any person responsible for the delay before the Court, and, should they so desire, can expedite the sale and have the suit terminated.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the plaintiff's in the case are paupers, that two or three of them have already died in the workhouse, and is there no possible means, in the interests of justice, of so expediting matters that they may have an opportunity of being heard?

was not aware of the position of the plaintiffs, nor had he any power in the matter.

Who is the receiver?

I am not aware, but I will obtain the information for the hon. Member if he desires it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will arrange that the official and ship's logs of all vessels during the time they were in the charge of the late captain of the Drummond Castle in his capacity as captain or as chief officer of such vessels shall be open to inspection by representatives of deceased passengers at the office of the Board of Trade or elsewhere at least six days before the commencement of the Inquiry; and, whether the same moans for information and facilities will be afforded in respect of vessels in the charge of the late chief officer of the Drummond Castle as captain or as chief officer of such vessels?

The official logs of the vessels referred to in the question will be open to inspection at the Board of Trade during the time mentioned by my hon. Friend. The ship's logs are in the custody of the Owners, who have been requested to produce them at the Inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the two staff clerks in the Admiralty recently promoted to the higher division, will he state what immediate advantage they derived from such promotion to compensate for the reduction of their salaries which they suffered in consequence; and, whether he can quote any precedents for reducing the salaries of permanent officials on their promotion to higher posts which were open to them by the regulations under which they were serving?

The hon. Member appears to assume that the two staff clerks were forced to accept promotion to the upper division. This of course was not the case. The choice lay entirely with them, and doubtless they chose to be promoted in the belief that the prospective advantages counterbalanced the immediate loss of salary. The question is not one of precedent but of the public interest. The clerks in question had been till a year and a half ago ordinary second division clerks, and were then appointed to staff posts at salaries almost double of those they had been drawing. It is not the intention of the Government, and it was certainly not the intention of the Ridley Commission, to allow such highly paid staff posts to become a lever for introducing second division clerks into the upper division at salaries so disproportionately high as compared with the initial salaries of the clerks who entered the upper division by open competition in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the action of the Board in reducing the Celtic marks was taken after the receipt of any communication on the subject from any source; whether that communication, with the names of the signatories, will be made public; and, whether, before coming to a decision on the point, the Commissioners invited or considered any suggestions to the contrary?

I am informed that the Board, when fixing the rules and programme for 1897, had before them several communications relative thereto. The question was settled by the Board—a very representative body—only after full consideration, though they did not officially invite or consider any suggestions opposed to a reduction in the marks. Any communications addressed to the Board in this matter are departmental documents, which it would be unusual to publish as a Parliamentary Paper, and I see no sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary practice in the present instance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations made by Mr. Fitzmaurice (in his recent Report upon the massacres in Northern Syria) for securing the safety of the Christians who, having been forced by the threat of death to declare themselves Mussulmans, have returned, or desire to return to their Christian faith?

Her Majesty's Ambassador was informed, in reply to the representations which he made in consequence of Mr. Fitzmaurice's Reports, that the Sultan had decided on the following measures: Regular troops would be substituted for reserves; a Commission of Inquiry, then at Marash, would be instructed to proceed at once to Biredjik to inquire into the question of the church which had been converted into a mosque, and in the event of this being the case to restore it to its former condition and deliver it back to the Christian community; further instructions would be sent to the Commission not to leave Biredjik until, by means of efficacious measures, confidence was thoroughly restored, so that the converts might be enabled to declare openly and officially their real religious views and perform their religious worship in perfect security. Mr. Fitzmaurice has been directed to return to Biredjik in order to watch the proceedings of the Commission.

said the information the right hon. Gentleman had given was contained in the Dispatch of May 18. What he desired to know was what steps had been taken to carry out the promises given?

said, if the right hon. Gentleman would give him notice, he would endeavour to ascertain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the sentence, on the complaint of the Parks Committee of the Corporation of Manchester, of one month's imprisonment passed on the 19th of June inst., by Mr. Headlam, the stipendiary magistrate for the city of Manchester, on Mr. Fred. Brocklehurst, B.A., for having simply spoken to a public meeting, which was orderly and without obstruction, held in a public open space on the outskirts of the city, known as Boggart Hole Clough; whether he is aware that Mr. Brocklehurst is being treated in all respect as a common criminal, put to wear prison clothes, and compelled to pick oakum; whether he is aware that there is no bye-law or statutory authority whatever prohibiting the holding of public meetings in the Clough; whether he will direct the immediate release of Mr. Brocklehurst, and also of Mr. Leonard Hall, who is imprisoned in the same circumstances, as being unlawfully detained; and whether he will consider their claim to compensation?

I have made inquiries and understand that Mr. Brocklehurst was convicted of breaking one of the bye-laws for the regulation of the park by causing annoyance in the park, and was sentenced to pay a fine of £5 or, in default, to one month's imprisonment. He is treated as a convicted prisoner not sentenced to hard labour, and is required to wear prison clothes, and has oakum in his cell to pick, as provided in the Prisons Act of 1865. An alteration in the classification of prisoners is not possible without fresh legislation; but, as I stated last week, proposals for legislating on the subject are engaging my attention. It is true there is no bye-law or statutory authority expressly prohibiting the holding of meetings in this park, but the magistrate found as a fact that the meeting caused annoyance and convicted the defendant accordingly. I cannot interfere with the decision of the magistrate in either case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that English newspapers containing comments or reports that are not palatable to the ruling Turkish authorities are rigorously suppressed and confiscated; whether he can confirm or contradict the statement that the British Postmaster in Constantinople, in accordance with an arrangement entered into some 15 years ago between the British and Turkish Governments, declines to deliver newspapers to which the latter Government objects; whether he can state the circumstances under which Her Majesty's Government consented to this censorship; and, whether any steps will be taken to relieve the representative of the British Post Office at Constantinople of such obligations?

It is the fact that the Porte from time to time represents to the British Ambassador at Constantinople that the Sultan objects to the circulation of such and such newspapers in the Ottoman Empire. The British Postmaster has no agreement or understanding with the Turkish Government; but, on receiving word from the Ambassador that a given paper is prohibited in the Turkish dominions, he refrains from allowing it to enter through the British Post Office. The sovereign right of any Government to object to the circulation of newspapers which it considers objectionable cannot be properly alienated by setting up a foreign agency within its dominions to circulate such papers against its will; and it seems only natural that if the Porte tolerates the existence of foreign post offices within the Ottoman Empire, they in their turn should abide by the laws relating to printed matter. There appear to be only two courses; either on the one hand the withdrawal of the British Post Office, and the consequent loss of a privilege to the British residents at Constantinople, or, on the other, the observance by the British Postmaster of the laws of the country in which he is allowed to work, even when those laws are less convenient to British residents than British laws would be.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that prohibited newspapers confiscated in the British Post Office were allowed to go through if sent to French or German offices?

asked if the rule or regulation of the British Post Office officials applied to British subjects residing in Turkey?

replied that it applied to newspapers to whoever they were directed. The answer to the hon. Member for Hanley was that what he bad said only applied to the British Post Office. He had no information on the other matters to which he alluded.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to the recent eviction in North Uist, Inverness-shire, of Widow Christina Flora M'Leod, who was found by the sheriff's officer to be too ill to be removed, and who, while still ill, was subsequently evicted without having been visited by a medical officer; whether, when conveyed to the poorhouse at Lochmaddy, the officials there considered her condition was such that she should not have been removed; and whether he will have some inquiry made in regard to this action of the sheriff's officer?

The hon. Member's assumption that the woman referred to was too ill to be removed is not borne out by the official reports received by the Secretary for Scotland. It appears to him that the Messenger at Arms acted quite properly on the occasion referred to, and he does not therefore see any reason for a special inquiry into the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, having regard to the fact that the landlord of the Island of North Uist is evicting the cottar population there without paying compensation under the terms of The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, steps will be taken to stay further evictions until the Land Court Commissioners are able to visit the island and decide upon the amount of compensation to be paid by the landlord for permanent improvements?

The assumption in the hon. Member's question does not seem to be correct. The proceedings referred to have been taken against four cottars only, and three evictions out of the four have been meantime abandoned owing to the illness of the cottars themselves or some of their families. There is no reason to believe that the landlord is evicting these four cottars without paying them compensation in terms of the Crofters' Act, and I am not aware that any such claim had been made by any of them; but any good claim can, be recovered in the usual way if the landlord refuses to meet his legal obligations. The Crofters' Commission were in North Uist in April and October last, when they disposed of one application, which was the only one brought before them of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. Since April no applications for compensation have reached the Commissioners from anyone in North Uist against whom proceedings of removal have been taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether as large a percentage of nitro-glycerine is still used in the manufacture of cordite powder as in June 1895; and whether any changes have been made in the manufacture of the powder, cartridge, or barrel, such as to bring about less erosion or fouling of the barrel of the Lee-Metford magazine rifle.

No change has been made in the proportion of nitroglycerine in cordite. Neither the powder nor the cartridge of the magazine rifle has been altered; but the groove of the barrel has been changed with the object of increasiug its endurance and diminishing the metallic fouling, although as regards the latter no trouble has been experienced.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, although all Volunteer battalions form part of the territorial system, this system is in many cases ignored in the organisation of Volunteer brigades, so that instances occur in which Volunteer battalions of the same territorial regiment are allotted to different Volunteer brigades, and Volunteer battalions belonging to several separate territoral districts are allotted to one and the same Volunteer brigade; whether, in consequence, colonels commanding different territorial districts have been obliged to attend the same brigade camp for the purpose of making the annual inspection of their own territorial Volunteer battalions; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy this inconvenience?

The wide extent of many territorial districts often renders it impracticable to place all the corps of one district in the same brigade; therefore, when inspections are held in the Brigade camp, it is inevitable that the colonels of the different districts should attend. As every effort has been made in the present arrangements to meet the convenience of the corps concerned, to change is contemplated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what progress is being made with the negotiations between Great Britain and Brazil in regard to the Island of Trinidad?

No negotiations have taken place with regard to the Island of Trinidad since Her Majesty's Government expressed their willingness to the Brazilian Government to submit the matter in dispute to arbitration.

asked whether the Brazilian Government had responded to the British Government?

The Brazilian Government have not so far expressed their willingness to agree to our proposition.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the annual value of the output of the Royal Ordnance Factories?

The average value of the output of the Ordnance Factories in each of the last five years has been £2,400,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement is correct that Earl Grey, the Administrator of the Chartered Company at Bulawayo, was jointly responsible with Sir F. Carrington for declining the offer of armed assistance from the Cape Government; whether the Imperial Government had taken over the sole responsibility for the maintemance of peace and order in Rhodesia before the present rebellion broke out; whether the forces now in Rhodesia are adequate to cope with the rebellion, or to prevent it from spreading over the whole country; and, whether Sir Frederick Carrington, in refusing reinforcements of either Imperial or Colonial troops, is acting on his own independent judgment, or is guided by the wishes and necessities of the Chartered Company?

Sir F. Carrington is solely responsible for advice to her Majesty's Government in regard to the forces required to put down the rebellion. Earl Grey has expressed his concurrence with Sir P. Carrington's opinion. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. In answer to a similar Question I have already stated that both Sir Frederick Carrington and General Goodenough are of opinion that further reinforcements are not required at present, but they have been informed that her Majesty's Government are prepared to send any forces that they may consider necessary. Sir F. Carrington is no doubt acting on his own judgment.

asked whether the strength of the force required to put down the rebellion would not be limited by the power of the Chartered Company to pay the bill?

No, Sir; certainly not.

asked if the Government had taken over the military and civil administration?

No, Sir; only the military administration.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. E. CARSON), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a document issued by the Schoolmasters' Association of Ireland, protesting against any portion of the funds available for intermediate education in Ireland being applied to the establishment of a veterinary college; whether the Government have any intention of making such application; and, whether an opportunity of discussing in this House any such project will be afforded to Members before any funds are so applied?

The document referred to in the Question has been received. I cannot give a pledge at present that the Government will under the circumstances propose to apply a portion of the surplus available from the grant to the Intermediate Education Board to the establishment of a veterinary college; but of course, if such a proposal were made, an opportunity of discussing it in this House would be give.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before deciding on a new scheme of Naval education he will communicate with the authorities of the great public Schools in Edinburgh Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, and elsewhere in Scotland, and also with the Education Institute of Scotland?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will kindly ascertain for me whether there would be any inclination to establish Navy classes in Scotch Schools, and whether their system of education would generally fall in with the preparation for the Britannia, I shall, of course, be prepared to place myself in communication with any educational establishment likely to co-operate successfully. But at present there is scarcely sufficient before me to entitle me to trouble Scotch educational authorities in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if Haidari, Tach, and Sarwakai, which were not part of India when c. 21 and 22 Vic. of 1858 became law, are now not beyond the external frontier of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, and when and how were those frontiers so extended as to include those places?

I would invite the attention of the hon. Baronet, to the answer given by me on the 4th June, which answers his first Question. As to how the places mentioned have become formally included within the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, I must refer him to the Kabul Convention recently published.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received an influentially-signed memorial supporting the claim of the industrial school conducted by the sisters of the Presentation Convent, Thurles, to be registered for the training of an increased number of female children; and (2), whether, in view of the fact that the work and efficiency of this school have been highly commended by successive Government Inspectors, the numerous applications for admission from various parts of the country, and the willingness of the manager to considerably enlarge the existing accommodation, he will favourably consider the suggestion that the number of certified children be raised from 45 to 100?

A memorial of the nature referred to in the first paragraph was received by me in December last. The result of inquiry then showed that, out of 47 children under detention in the school, 46 were from the County and City of Dublin, while there was but one child in the school from the County of Tipperary. Owing to the dimensions already assumed by the grant for industrial schools in Ireland, and the claims of existing certified schools which meet the wants of the localities in which they are situate, I am afraid I cannot hold out a hope that any renewed application for an extension of the certificate now granted to the particular institution in question will be favourably considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact, as shown in the official correspondence of the Department, No. 190,693, that a telegram handed in at Southampton at 10.55 p.m. on the 20th of May last, and addressed to an officer residing within 20 yards of the telegraph office in Paddington Station, reached the West Strand office at 11.42 p.m., and was thence carried by a messenger on foot to the house of the addressee, who was awakened long after midnight and required to pay 1s. for porterage; and that, on the refusal of the addressee to pay porterage, the messenger said he could have the telegram without being required to pay anything, and so left it; will he explain on what grounds, on receiving a written complaint from the addressee of the delay and claim for porterage, the Department has renewed such claim; whether he is aware that the present system of delivering night messages in London causes much needless delay, expense, and alarm; and, whether he will make arrangements for the receipt and dispatch of such messages from all London offices which are always open without special charge for porterage?

The Postmaster General's attention has been drawn to the facts referred to by the hon. Member, and they are correct, except that the Paddington Station office is not a delivering office, and that the telegram was delivered by omnibus as far as available, and not, as implied, by a messenger on foot the whole distance. The porterage should have been paid by the sender when the telegram was handed in, but as this was not done the Department has very properly sought to obtain payment from the addressee. The Postmaster General is not aware that the present system of delivering night messages in London causes needless expense, delay, and alarm, and he is not prepared, nor would it be in accordance with the Statute, to deliver telegrams without charge beyond the prescribed area of free delivery. The hours up to which offices are kept open for delivery are fixed with a careful regard to the reasonable requirements of the district, and the avoidance of undue expense to the State.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the attacks of the pea thripp in the East of England; and if he will issue instructions for dealing with it?

We have not hitherto received any complaints as to the prevalence of the pea and bean weevil during the present year. Information and instructions respecting it were issued in the form of a leaflet last year, several thousand copies of which were then circulated amongst agriculturists, especially in Essex. The leaflet is kept in stock, and we shall be very happy to supply copies free of charge to anyone who may desire to receive them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 18th June a French torpedo boat entered Jersey Harbour and took soundings over the adjacent coast; whether such proceedings are of frequent occurrence in the Channel Islands; and whether any steps have been or will be taken to prevent them?

My attention has not been called to the matter, but I will make inquiry. Communications have been made to the French Government on previous occasions with regard to similar occurrences.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to a case at Bristol where a police constable claimed the right to enter a room in a licensed house in which a tiled lodge of the Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes were holding a private meeting; whether he is aware that large numbers of Masonic, Oddfellows, and other similar lodges hold their meetings on licensed premises; and, whether interference by the police with such meetings, except in cases where some breach of the Licensing Laws is suspected, is authorised by the Home Office?

My attention had not previously been called to this case, but I understand from the newspaper report which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me, that the question of the right of the police to enter such meetings when held on licensed premises is still sub judice, and I can therefore express no opinion in the matter. I may add that the provincial police forces do not act under the authority of the Home Office, and that it is not the practice of the Metropolitan police to enter the lodges of Freemasons or similar lodges on licensed premises.

rose to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the classification of lands and heritages for purposes of rating in Scotland; for the relief of the occupiers of agricultural lands and heritages; for the creation of a fund for the improvement of congested districts in the Highlands and Islands; and for relief from the payment of Land Tax in burghs in Scotland.

asked, on a point of order, whether this was a Bill which could be brought in under the new Standing Order, by which no discussion could take place on the Bill beyond a speech from each side of the House?

This is not a question of Order; and certainly I can express no opinion at present. I have not yet heard what the Bill is. No doubt there are Bills which ought not to be introduced under Standing Order No. 19; but I cannot form an opinion as to whether this is one of them until I hear the statement of the Lord Advocate.

The House is aware that the English Bill for the relief of agricultural rating passed its Third Beading yesterday. I apprehend that the principle of the Bill was to attempt the partial redress of the inequality existing between personalty and realty in the matter of local taxation, and the application of that relief to the class of realty which suffers most from the undue impact of taxation—namely, agricultural land. When you come to look at Scotland, the antecedent inequality is the same; but when you come to apply the relief, it is obvious that you cannot follow directly English precedent, because the Scotch system of rating is so different, that if you did in words what seemed to be the same you would be doing in effect something entirely different. The rates from which you gave relief would be different, and the measure of relief would be different in amount. Accordingly, as obviously the intention is to confer an equal benefit to the two kingdoms, you cannot let the, relief in Scotland be conditioned as it is in England as to the amount by the rate relieved, but you are driven logically in the Scotch case to the principle of equivalent grant. The sum of money which under the calculations made will be given to England is £1,650,000 per annum, and applying to that figure the now well known proportion of 11 to 80 you get for Scotland, the available yearly sum of £214,500. Accordingly the problem which the Secretary for Scotland in framing this Bill had to face was this—how best to apply that sum with the same ends in view as in England, but having regard to the peculiarities of the Scotch rating system. The House will remember that in Scotland the rates are half upon the owner and half upon the occupier. The county rates other than the public health rates are imposed a full rate upon the total valuation. The public health rate follows the condition of the poor rate, and the poor rate is not necessarily charged a full rate on the total valuation, but may be a classified rate. I wish to ask the House to consider what classification is, because I believe that in considering what classification is we get something very near the kernel of this whole question. There are two parallel considerations which are parallel, but which are often confused. There is the question of realty having to pay much that personalty may be called upon to pay, but is not called on to pay under our present system. But when you come to the question of what realty pays, there is this obvious distinction when you come to the occupier as between one class of realty and another. The agriculturist when he is rated as he is upon his land is rated upon his whole stock in trade, and in that he differs from anyone else who possesses realty, who is practically not rated upon his whole stock in trade. After all, all taxes, although they may be said to be upon land, are really upon the means and substance of the person who owns or occupies that land, and the means and substance will bear a very different proportion in the case of the agriculturist to the case of anybody else who is occupying land and carrying on any different business. Of course, the House will see that is a standing grievance in our present system as regards agriculture. It is a grievance which is very much accentuated when you come to the depressed condition of agriculture, such as has existed in a great degree in England, and in a real degree, though probably not in so great a degree, in Scotland. Classification therefore I think is just in principle, but in practice it has been obscured by two blots. In the first place, it is optional to the local authorities, and the result has been that out of a total of 900 parishes in Scotland only 190 have adopted classification. In the second place, it is under present law liable to be capriciously abandoned, a result which all those who have had experience of county affairs know is particularly hard when you come to the practical working of the public health rate. Now by the simple expedient of applying our relief not directly to the rate, as it is done in the English Bill, but to the valuation on which the rate is levied, we are enabled to kill three birds with one stone. We give the agricultural occupier relief. I will state the proportion presently. Note that we give it to the occupier alone. We do not touch the owners' rate, and I hope that in the discussions that will follow on this Bill we shall hear no more about the dole to the landlords. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Speaking generally, there are exceptions, the agricultural land of Scotland is let on leases, which at least have a currency of five years, and as regards that peculiar class of crofters it is of course absolutely impossible that in any way the relief of the occupiers' rate could ever reach the landlord. Having done that we are enabled to do away with the existing classification and the anomalies which under the existing law take place as between parish and parish, and we are enabled to put the public health rating on the solid basis of the other county rates. So far as regards agricultural land. But there are two other classes of realty which specially call for relief. There has been for a long time a tax known as the burgh land tax, not very great in amount, but vexatious, and very difficult and expensive of collection. We propose to abolish that tax, which takes a sum of £7,000 a year. But in doing that, although we only give £7,000, we save the expense of collection, which has been £2,000 a year. Of the £2,000 £700 will revert to the Exchequer and £1,300 will revert to the burghs themselves. Besides that there is another question.

Will there be any compensation to collectors?

There is nothing in the Bill about that. There are certain districts where it is obvious no mere relief of rates would ever touch the difficulties under which they suffer, and we have thought this a profitable opportunity to take a sum, which we have put at £15,000 a year, in order to form the nucleus of a congested district board, but in this Bill we do not propose to introduce any scheme. We propose simply to earmark that money, leaving details of the scheme over for future legislation; and I would ask those Members interested in the crofting interest to remember that there is not much hardship in that, because the money will actually only be available on 31st of March next. Therefore legislation in the early period of next Session will be in time, as soon as the money is available. The balance of money available fixes a proportion of relief which is given, as I have said, to the agricultural occupier, and it is sufficient to reduce his existing rates by five-eighths, that is to say, to reduce the valuation to three-eighths instead of a whole. To sum up what the Bill does, £214,500 is intercepted out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty just as in the English Bill, and it is put into the Local Taxation Account just as in the English Bill. It is disposed of in this manner—£7,000 for the abolition of the Burgh Land Tax, £15,000 for the formation of this congested districts nucleus, and the balance to replace the deficiency in the rates, which will take effect by reducing the valuation of agricultural land to the occupiers to three eighths. The limits of the Standing Order have compelled me to make this statement of extreme brevity. I can only hope it has not induced me to obscurity. I trust that when the Bill comes to be read and understood, that the House will recognise that it is an honest endeavour to lay out this money to the best practical advantage under the Scotch system, always with due regard to the underlying principles on which relief is primarily granted in these cases by the Imperial Exchequer.

said the right hon. Gentleman had explained the Bill with a clearness which would certainly have enabled them to discuss it, if the Government had adopted another method of introducing it. But he did not wish for a moment to enter into any controversy on that point. The object of the Government was to place this Bill as soon as possible before the representatives of the people of Scotland. In his opinion, and that of many around him, it should have been introduced at an earlier period. The present date was very late—unfortunately late, and the only amends the Government could make was to print it at the earliest possible moment, and to give a good long time between the First and Second Reading to the consideration of the Bill in Scotland. The Scotch people knew a good deal about local taxation and about Imperial taxation, and about their relation to each other—on which this Bill depended. The ratepayers and taxpayers of Scotland would study this Bill, and their representatives in the House would discuss it thoroughly. The Leader of the House said yesterday, with reference to this Bill, that the most controversial part had already been discussed ad nauseam. The right hon. Gentleman must know very little of his countrymen who lived in the towns if he thought for a moment that they would silently accept the principle that the ratepayers and taxpayers of the towns were to pay five-eighths of the rates of the rural occupiers of Scotland, because that principle had been passed—not silently, but after a long discussion—by an English majority. The circumstances under which the Bill was introduced would render it the duty of Scotch Members to discuss it thoroughly. Very serious questions were dealt with in the Bill. The Highland grant, the assimilation of the Public Health Rate to the other county burdens, the abolition of the Land Tax in burghs—on these points English Members probably knew little or nothing at all, and they would not say anything; but they would come into the House and vote upon them as if they understood them, Scotch votes in this matter would not settle Scotch questions; and Scotch Members must see that Scotch arguments were given to the House and afterwards read in Scotland. The form of the Bill was complimentary to Scotland. It was not in appearance a mere crude paying of rates; but in essence it was the same as the English Measure. The right hon. Gentleman said it was founded on the principle of classification in Scotland, but that principle, as described by the right hon. Gentleman himself, was fallacious. The right hon. Gentleman said that principle was that a farmer who had an income of £100 a year paid on a rental of £100 a year; whereas a tradesman who had an income of £100 a year paid on a rental of, say, £20. That might be so; but the rates were paid by the owners of the land, and a man who had an income of £1,000 a year in ships paid just as much as a man who had an income of £1,000 a year from farms. Not only was the whole of this money, with the exception of £7,000 to the burghs and £15,000 to the Highland counties, to go to the rural occupier, but it was to go in relief of the rates on farm houses and buildings, as well as the rates on the land. If the case against such a proposal was strong in England, it was stronger in Scotland. In the first place, the average rate outside the burghs, in Scotland, was much lower than in England. It was 2s. 0½d. against 2s. 3d., and it included the Education Rate in every parish; while in England education was very largely met by voluntary contributions. In the rural areas of Scotland, non-remunerative rates amounted to only 8½d., and that was not enough to justify their special relief. But his next reason was much stronger. It was that the evidence given before the Agricultural Commission, and especially the reports of the Assistant Commissioners, proved that agricultural distress was a very different thing in Scotland and in England. Mr. Hope—who himself paid £4 10s. an acre for 1,100 acres—reported there was an appreciably increased demand for farms, and that farms when exposed to public competition had in many cases been let at an increased rent. Mr. Speir, another Assistant Commissioner, reported that, on an immense district covering four counties—

"There are no farms on the landlords' hands, much less any lands, lying idle, nor is the least difficulty in letting a farm of almost any kind."

The President of the Local Government Board gave as a reason for supporting his Bill, that in 99 cases out of 100, when a farm was to let, the rent was lowered instead of being raised; but the evidence given before the Commission by factors, farmers and Commissioners alike, showed that, when a farm was vacant, for the most part the rent was increased. Both the Assistant Commissioners reported that temporary abatements were one of the crying evils in regard to agriculture, and everyone knew that where these abatements were given, every penny of this relief would go into the landlord's pocket. In the next place, this was not what the farmers of Scotland had been asking for. They had spoken at great length on the questions of entail, the cropping clauses in leases, the game laws, the burning of heather, and the provisions of the Ground Game Acts in regard to hares and rabbits in the neighbourhood of moorland—that is to say, over half Scotland. What they all maintained was that the Agricultural Holdings Bill was a sham and a nullity. These were the matters on which they had spoken, and yet the only remedy for agricultural distress was that the ratepayers of Glasgow, whose poor rate was 10½d., the ratepayers of Stirling, whose poor rate was 1s., the ratepayers of Dundee whose poor rate was 10¼d. and the ratepayers of Greenock, whose poor rate was 11d., were to pay five-eighths of the burdens of the rural districts in such counties as Kincardine and Kinross, where the poor rate was 4d., 3d., and even 2¼d. On the Second Reading and afterwards, a great deal would be said about this Bill, and a strong and even hostile attitude would be taken up and maintained by those who held, that in the case of money which came from every taxpayer in Scotland, the lion's share many times over should not go to one industry, however important, or to one set of districts however extensive, but should be devoted to the general purposes of the community and the welfare of every corner of the Kingdom. [Cheers.] Bill to amend the Law with respect to the Classification of Lands and Heritages for purposes of Rating in Scotland; for the Relief of the Occupiers of Agricultural Lands and Heritages; for the Creation of a fund for the Improvement of Congested Districts in the Highlands and Islands; and for Relief from the payment of Land Tax in Burghs in Scotland, ordered to he brought in by The Lord Advocate, The First Lord of the Treasury, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; presented accordingly, and read the first time: to be read a second time upon Monday 13th July, and to be printed.—[Bill 303.]

said that it was impossible for those who had consistently opposed all these proposals for a railway to Uganda to allow this Vote to pass unchallenged. Though he could not complain if the Government desired to reserve the statement till Second Reading, he did complain that no Papers had been laid on the Table to show the changes which had been made with regard to the nature and cost of this railway in the scheme of the Government's predecessors. Repeated and serious changes must have occurred under successive Governments, because the sums asked for had varied; and the present Government contemplated a much larger expenditure than the late Government. He did not complain of that in itself, because previous estimates were founded on very imperfect data. No one could tell what the cost of this railway would be, and much less what would be its probable returns. The Mombasa Railway Survey, the results of which were laid before the House two years ago, led to an estimate of £2,210,000 as the probable cost of the railway; but it was admitted in that Report that there would be a deficit on the working expenses of the line. The present Government did not anticipate such a deficit, because, in answer to a recent Question, the Secretary to the Treasury said, "The excess of receipts over working expenses will be paid into the Exchequer." Did the right hon. Gentleman really anticipate an excess of receipts over expenses? Then the late Government thought the line might be made more cheaply by abandoning the idea of bringing native labour from India, and employing the labour to be obtained on the spot. Was that the scheme of the present Government; because there had been repeated renewals of fighting; since the late Government thought that the country was quiet enough for the employment of African labour? A principal objection to this railway was that it was a defiance of natural conditions, and attempted artifically to divert trade-routes—a thing which had never been successfully done. Trade-routes were very permanent. They were maintained over flat country and along water-ways. This railway went over the highlands to Uganda—a route which trade had never followed. As the War Office Report of 1892 pointed out, it had chosen the easiest and most circuitous route. From a commercial point of view, therefore, the railway was almost certain to be a failure. He did not speak as one who was opposed under all circumstances to the extension of the responsibilities of the Empire. It was a matter of time and place in each instance. But at this particular moment of our history he was disposed to view such proposals negatively, especially when they involved operations at a long distance from the naval base. Our position now was difficult. We had many rivals and possible enemies, and we ought rather to strain every effort to maintain our defensive position. Our military system was not suited to this territorial extension in the interior. It had already broken down, and schemes were now before Parliament for remedying the deficiencies. But many hon. Members would join in opposing this particular extension to Uganda.

intimated that the hon. Baronet was going beyond the limits of the Question.

said that he had only mentioned that point lest it should be made a matter of reproach against him. The railway had been recommended by the late and the present Government on the ground that it would pass through and open up a healthy district capable of plantation by Europeans. The line would indeed pass through high altitudes, but it was a great mistake to suppose that they were districts which were likely to be the scene of prosperous European colonisation. At the Geographical Conference held in London last year, two men of great authority spoke in relation to this question—Mr. Silva White and Mr. Raven-stein. No more competent authorities on the subject of the future of the highlands through which the railway would pass could be found, and they agreed in saying that those highlands were not, in the opinion of scientific African explorers, likely to have a great future; that they offered no prospect for the acclimatisation of the white race; that a fall in temperature did not make up, in regard to health, for the absence of seasonable change; and that allowance was not made by Governments for the great humidity of those parts. They added that unless this part of the country was rich in minerals—of which there "was not the slightest evidence at present—there was not much chance for its development, and that it was unsuitable for European colonisation. In conclusion he would merely add that he believed this railway would not only involve this country in enormous expense at the beginning, but would be the cause of a continual deficit year by year and a constant drain on the taxpayer. [Cheers.]

said it was too late in the day now to discuss the principle of the Uganda Railway. That had been decided by a vote of the majority of the House during the administration of the late Government, and was accepted by a unanimous vote of the House in August last, when the present Government came into Office. The right hon. Baronet said, in the first place, that there appeared to have been considerable changes in the financial scheme which the Committee were invited to accept, and he complained that no Papers had been laid before the House explaining or justifying those changes. The only Papers that could be laid before the House relevant to the matter since last year had been the private accounts of the proceedings of the Committee which had been sitting every fortnight in the Foreign Office to carry out the details for the making of this railway. So far from no Papers having been laid, the right hon. Baronet surely must have seen the Paper laid before the House a few weeks ago, which contained a summary of the proceedings of that Committee. It appeared to him that they had in that document as clear and concise an account as could possibly be desired of the circumstances under which the Government had decided to bring in this Bill, and to ask for £3,000,000. The right hon. Baronet justly pointed out that the original estimate of Major MacDonald was for a total sum of £2,240,000, and as against that he set the estimate arrived at by the Committee of experts, which sat during the time of the late Government, and which reduced the total sum to £1,755,000. But the right hon. Baronet omitted to state what was the method by which that reduction was arrived at. It was produced, in the first place, by reducing the gauge of the railway. Major MacDonald proposed 3 feet 6 inches, the Committee reduced it to 3 feet. They reduced the weight of the rails from 50 lb. to 35 lb. They allowed the minimum amount of stations and rolling stock, and they limited in every possible particular to the barest requirements the provisions which had to be made for the railway. That was a clear explanation of the causes of the difference between the original estimate of Major MacDonald and the reduced estimate, framed on principles of economy, by the Committee of experts of 1895. The present Government had preferred to go back to the original estimate of the engineer who surveyed the whole route—[cheers]—and in asking for £3,000,000 they were asking for rather more than the original estimate. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: "Hear, hear!" Why did the Government ask for more? The reason was that no very detailed surveys of parts of the line had been taken. It was by no means certain in respect to certain parts what route would be actually adopted. They could not even be certain what amount of bridging, when they came to particular spots, would be required. As prudent business men, therefore, the Government had thought it right to allow a margin, and, instead of asking for the precise sum which appeared in the original estimate, they had asked for a sum of £3,000,000. ["Hear, hear!"] In regard to the question of labour, the Government would be only too happy to employ both native and Indian labour. At present, owing to the dearth of native labour, they had been compelled to go to India for the supply of labour, and there were now about 3,000 coolies engaged in the work of constructing the line. As the work advanced further into the interior it was hoped that the native tribes might come in and work for wages, thereby permitting of a reduction of the coolie establishment. One thing, at any rate, the Government had resolved upon. No forced labour had been, was, or was going to be, employed on the work. [Cheers.] The work would be done entirely by free and paid labour—[cheers]—and it did not seem to him to matter much whether that labour came from India or was provided on the spot. [Cheers.] What the Government desired was that the work should be well and economically done. "Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Baronet had indulged in the familiar apprehensions of trouble on the route, and he alluded, not unnaturally, to an unfortunate incident that happened in the early part of the year, when a caravan was attacked by the Masai. From this circumstance the right hon. Baronet considered that the prospects of the railway's engineers would be bad. He was happy to be able to tell the Committee, however, that this was an isolated incident, which arose from a misapprehension. A large caravan of Swaheli porters was returning to the coast when some of their number made an irruption at night into a Masai camp. Upon this a large number of the Masai rushed to their arms, and practically butchered the whole caravan. It was a most lamentable incident, but it arose out of a nocturnal blunder. Such a thing happened sometimes even in organised warfare, and it was still more likely to occur in such a country as this. The matter had been composed, and the Masai were ready, he believed, to give assistance in constructing the line when the operations reached their country. In reference to the question of climate, he confessed that there was a division of authority among experts. Mr. Silva White and Mr. Raven-stein had, no doubt, spoken in somewhat uncomplimentary terms of the climate of the plateau through which the railway would pass; but Sir John Kirk, who was in those parts a greater authority than either of the two gentlemen named, said that in his experience there was not a more healthy part of the continent than this particular plateau. With this conflict of opinion the Government, he thought, might be permitted to rely on the opinion of Sir John Kirk. ["Hear, hear!" Any further discussion on the wider principles involved in the matter should, he thought, be reserved for the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he had throughout been opposed to the scheme of the construction of the railway to Uganda, and he claimed the right to challenge it whenever possible. In these matters he did not take a Party view. He took a patriot's view—[Ministerial laughter]—and, as a patriot, and one of the guardians of the public purse, he had always protested and should always protest against this great waste of public money. One of his reasons for opposing annexation was that he knew perfectly well that, directly they annexed some wretched, miserable jungle in the centre of Africa they would be called upon to build a railroad to it. ["Hear, hear!"] He denied that Uganda, admitted to be worthless by successive Governments, would ever be made valuable by the building of a railroad to it. He denied that there were products there which could be brought to the coast with any possibility of advantage. The Africans were a lazy people. If an African could get another African to work for him he did so, and if they really wanted to carry out a system of large crops they Lad better not only allow, as they did at present, domestic servitude, but establish the slave trade in all its horrors. It was hoped to establish a trade for their manufactured goods in this part of the world. Every country had its advantages and so had Africa. It had the advantage of a hot climate and consequently they did not require clothes. [Laughter.] So far as he had ever been able to gather, the African was a simple-minded and somewhat practical man. All he wanted off foreign countries was a little gin if he could possibly get it, and a gun with which to shoot his neighbour if he could possibly get the chance of shooting him. [Laughter.] The only things he wanted they refused to supply him with. [Laughter.] It was quite proper that they should refuse, but if they thought the Ugandese were going to labour and toil in order to get what they in this country considered necessary for them they were thoroughly mistaken. Of course the old argument had been used that, if they established this railway, the slave trade would be done away with. It had been proved over and over again, by men who had looked into the matter very closely, that the railroad would do nothing of the sort, because slaves from Uganda and the surrounding country did not pass down to Mombasa and the coast through British territory, but through Portuguese territory, and, to a certain extent, through German territory. The slaves that were brought down from the interior were employed in Zanzibar and in the island of Pemba, and he was perfectly certain that, if they put an end to slavery in Pemba and on the coast, they would do far more to stop the slave trade in that part of Africa than they could by the building of this railway. His right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had already pointed out that the estimate had gone up. Major MacDonald laid it down that the maximum cost would be £2,240,000.

said if the hon. Member would look at the original return, he would find that that did not include the further works which Major MacDonald thought might be necessary.

said he did not understand that these further works were to be established. But last year they were told that this estimate was in excess, and that the railroad would cost £1,750,000. Now they had suddenly sprung upon them a demand for £3,000,000, and there was not the slightest guarantee that still more would not be asked for. They might take it that, if they were really going to build this railroad, it would cost in all probability £5,000,000 rather than £3,000,000. ["Hear, hear!"] His right hon. Friend also pointed out that about G00 miles of the country through which the railroad would pass was a desert, inhabited by fierce savages in the main. [Ministerial laughter.] The Under Secretary smiled, but he admitted that he had not been there—[laughter]—and he hoped he would not go, because they would be very sorry to lose him. [Laughter.] What was the Under Secretary's explanation of what had occurred a short time ago? They were told in August last that the Masai had become a sort of missionary people—[laughter]—longing to welcome the English with open arms. Since then they butchered a caravan, but the right hon. Gentleman said they must excuse that; it was a little going back to their old nature; it was quite a misapprehension. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman did not explain what the misapprehension was, but when he told them that these Masai were the best of human beings he asked the Committee whether they could seriously accept his estimate of these people. The right hon. Gentleman also told them that the climate was excellent. All he knew was that about 60 per cent. of the English officers who had been sent there were dead—["hear, hear!"]—and that those who had come home had come back so utterly ruined in health that they were hardly worth anything. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it was a dispensation of Providence that Europeans should be unable to live in some parts of Africa. [Laughter.] If it were otherwise, so greedy were they that they would either destroy or reduce to servitude the whole African continent, and establish themselves there as the masters. ["Hear, hear!"] He would ask the Committee to seriously consider what it was they were undertaking. He would put the cost at £3,000,000. That, at 3 per cent. was £90,000 a year. Major MacDonald put down the requirements at one train per week, and he estimated—though he believed this was a very sanguine estimate—that the gross receipts would be "£61,000, but that the working expenses would be £07,000. He was not a railway director himself, but he should like an hon. Member who was to tell him whether it was possible to pay all the expenses of a railway in Africa and to maintain it on £07,000 a year. His own impression was, not only that the railway would cost more than £3,000,000, but that they would have to pay some £40,000 or £50,000 per annum to keep going a railway that nobody wanted. It started from nowhere, and nobody wanted to use it. It went nowhere, and no one wanted to come back by it. [Laughter.] In his opinion this money would be absolutely thrown away. If the Government really wanted to spend money to increase the area of their commerce, surely they could have found a better place than the centre of Africa. It would be a better speculation to spend money in making a railway in Siam rather than Central Africa. It would be even better to make a railway in South Africa than to Ugunda, where there were no European settlers to make use of them. If the Government were really so anxious to spend this money, why should they not appropriate it towards the construction of light railways in the Highlands of Scotland? This wild proposal to make speculative railways in the tropics of Africa was absurd on the face of it. He had been called a "Little Englander," for the part that he had taken in this matter, but it did not much matter to him what he was called. He was in favour of the extension of our commerce by every legitimate means at our command, but he asked the House to be guided by common sense and to lay out the money of the country to the best advantage. Let hon. Members put aside Party feeling in connection with this subject and ask themselves whether this railway, upon which they were asked to spend three or four millions, was ever likely to pay or to be of any advantage whatever to this country. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he thought the Debate was proceeding on a somewhat low plane. Amongst the many subjects of great importance directly connected with this railway, only one—that of slavery—had been touched on, and the hon. Member who had just sat down had dealt with the subject of slavery in Africa, he would not say with ignorance, but with that partial exposition of knowledge with which he sometimes dealt with subjects where he was desirous of making out a good case on one side or the other. He believed that it was perfectly well known to the hon. Gentleman that the slavery in Africa of which he complained and of which Uganda was the nerve centre, consisted in the main in the practice of portage between the centre of the continent and the coast. It was owing to that practice that so many natives lost their lives, and therefore the construction of this railway would be the most serious blow that slavery in Central Africa could receive. ["Hear, hear!"] He confessed that he had been rather surprised that the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Lean, in which he attacked the proposal for the construction of this railway, had not been more forcible and more interesting. The right hon. Baronet had objected that the railway was intended to be used for the supply of our own officials in Uganda, but when the line was constructed the transport of goods which now cost £200 per ton between the coast and Uganda would only cost £7 per ton. He quite admitted the force of the phrase of the right hon. Baronet as to the difficulty of diverting traffic from its accustomed channels, but he appealed to the hon. Baronet himself to say whether, as soon as this line of railway was constructed, the traffic would not naturally flow along it instead of through the old channels by caravan. They ought not, however, to judge of the scheme solely upon its own merits, without looking at the policy it was intended to carry into effect. This line would eventually link the finest harbour on the east coast to the backbone of Africa, which would afford unbroken communication between the north and south of that continent. Without this railway it would be difficult for England to establish a hold upon the key of Africa, which at the present time was Uganda. He did not wish to detain the Committee in reference to this subject upon that occasion, because he thought that the proper time for discussing it would be on the Second Reading of the Bill which was intended to carry out the Resolution, when, if the opponents of the railway really had a case, he supposed that stronger arguments against the proposal would be adduced than had been put forward against it that evening. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, when the proposal was first suggested, that this line of 657 miles could be constructed for £1,750,000, whereas now the cost was estimated at £3,000,000.

said that the line now proposed would be of a broader gauge and of more solid construction than that which was originally suggested.

said that he was quite aware of that fact, but the alteration of gauge from 3 ft. to 3 ft. 6 ins., and the weight of rails from 35 lbs. to 50 lbs. did not account for that extra cost, nor did he see any reason to suppose that the estimate of £3,000,000 might not be largely exceeded. Taking the estimated cost of the line at £5,600, which appeared on page 9 of the Report as the ultimate cost per mile, that would give a total cost of £3,600,000, and even that would be less than the average cost of other railways in South Africa of the same gauge. He held in his hand a list of 10 such railways, the average cost of which was more than £8,000 per mile. It was said that the authorities had obtained no new information during the last six months, and that the House had nothing new beyond the few memoranda which certain gentlemen at the Foreign Office had put down on paper. Therefore, the House was thrown back on a statement presented to the House in August 1895, which was brought up to date in the Treasury Minute of April last. That statement declared that no detailed surveys or specifications, or bills of quantities had been prepared, and added that were the Government to embark on the undertaking on such incomplete preliminaries, they would incur a very grave responsibility. The fact that these preliminaries had not been completed was given, he admitted, as a reason for not letting the contract, but it was also sufficient reason for the House not to plunge into this enormous expenditure without knowing what ultimate outlay they had to face. But the question arose, was this a railway at all? Was it not an undertaking in the nature of warlike operations? Every station was, according to the engineer's reports, to be a sort of little fort; the staff was to be a mobile military body, a sort of flying squadron on shore. [Laughter.] They were to be converted into a sort of military band for the protection of the passengers going up and coming down by the one train a week each way. It was gravely recommended that the water tanks should be capable of being converted into forts. What was to become of the passengers when the staff was away on warlike operations? Who was to collect the tickets? [Laughter.] Were the passengers to travel without tickets? The hon. Member for Northampton said there would be no traffic down this line. He thought, probably, the only traffic would be down the line. [Laughter.] But he might be asked: "Do you object to this railway?" Possibly he did not, but he ventured to point out that there was an alternative proposal in Major MacDonald's Report, which he ventured to say it would be wise to adopt. Major MacDonald said:—

"make a railway for a portion of the distance and treat the rest as a caravan route, and you can test the value of the experiment at a cost of £850,000."

How would any business men set to work to build this railway? Not in the ridiculous way suggested by the gentlemen in the Colonial Office. Nothing more opposed to commercial ideas could be invented. Would any limited company ever dream of going to the public to raise £3,000,000 without ascertaining what the line was to cost. Let the surveys be completed, let competent engineers accurately ascertain the cost, and then let the Government raise the money on Government credit at a low rate of interest, say 2¼ per cent., and place, as other Governments were accustomed to do, the work in the hands of people who would give a price for the work. The only truly economical and successful way of constructing such a line was to raise money on Government credit, and to do the work through substantial contractors. Therefore, he thought they were absolutely wasting their time in proposing to the country to embark at this stage this large sum of money in an investment which no reasonable business man would, with the present information, tolerate for five minutes. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the House was asked to vote £3,000,000 to the Foreign Office to speculate in a railway from the coast to the interior of Africa. If this were done, the £3,000,000 would soon swell into £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. Even if a railway could be built for that price, the cost of keeping it up would be very great. He doubted if such a line as this could be made for less than £7,000 a mile, and as probably 800 miles would have to be made instead of 657, the cost would be £5,000,000. This was only the first cost. Did right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench know anything about the cost of upkeep? The annual cost of repairing bridges and culverts would amount to something like £300,000 a year. Why should Parliament spare £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and take this responsibility on themselves I What good would be got from it? It was said that it would lead to the suppression of the slave trade. He doubted that very much. Both the present and former Governments had plenty of chances to do that. The present Government had evaded their responsibility, and had condoned slavery and supported it. He should oppose the Bill at every stage, believing that the £3,000,000 which it was proposed to spend on the construction of this railway could be much better expended at home. He feared that there would be a good deal of bloodshed in the course of the construction of the line, and it would be necessary to renew the rails frequently, because the natives would be certain to appropriate them, and use the iron for their spears and other purposes. It was a harebrained scheme altogether.

observed that the hon. Member who had just sat down admitted last August that the construction of the railway was only the logical outcome of the policy of the occupation of Uganda. That policy having been accepted by the country, what were the Government to do? Having assumed responsibility for the country, were they to utilise it or were they to leave it in a condition of barbarism? The country could not be utilised if the railway were not constructed, that view was taken by the late Government, and was accepted by the House last August. That being the case, it was a little hard, on a Motion of this kind, which was tantamount to a Motion for the introduction of a Bill, to raise the whole question over again. Much had been said as to the probability of traffic on this line. One thing was certain, there would be an enormous difference, if the railway was constructed, in the cost of carrying goods and merchandise between the lakes and the coast. Whereas the Government had now to pay £37,000 a year for the conveyance of stores between the coast and Uganda, that cost after the construction of the railway would be reduced to £6,500. A traffic of 3,500 tons, three trains being run each way per week, would pay practically the working expenses of the line. It had been said that the estimate for the railway was too low. He admitted that it was impossible for the Government to say that the estimate of three millions would not be exceeded, but it was made on the authority of a committee composed of gentlemen who were thoroughly competent to express an opinion. The committee consisted of Sir Percy Anderson, of the Foreign Office; Mr. O'Callaghan, who had been chief of the Railway Department in India, and who knew well the cost of constructing railways over a country very similar to that which the Uganda line would traverse; Sir Montagu Ommanney, who had been intrusted with the construction of many railways in our colonies as Crown Agent; Mr. G. L. Ryder, of the Treasury; Sir Alexander Rendel, the consulting railway engineer of the Indian Government; and Sir John Kirk, who was better acquainted with the district in question than any other Englishman. It would have been impossible to obtain better authority for this estimate than the recommendation of a Committee such as that. Then it had been said that the estimate was based upon an insufficient survey. But was that survey so insufficient? With regard to the first 100 miles which it was proposed to cover during the present year, most detailed estimates had been furnished of the probable expenditure in respect of land in the cultivated belt, and on construction, permanent way, rolling stock, and administration. Estimates had been furnished with respect to each of these items, just as if they related to the construction of a railway in England. There were surveyors at the present moment at work among the very hills where the survey had not yet been completed. They were probably as safe as they would be in London, and one of them in a letter just received reported that the climate was as good as he could wish it to be. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that the exaggerated statements that had been made in that Debate were due to the fact that hon. Members had not yet been able to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with the details of this scheme. He hoped that they would now be allowed to pass this Resolution, which was only a preliminary to the introduction of the Bill.

said they were told it was not worth while to discuss the question of principle at this stage of the matter, and he did not know that they need now go into that question at any length, because there would be other opportunities of doing so. At the same time this must not be considered as having approved the principle. ["Hear, hear!"] It was worth while protesting against a mischievous principle at any time and at any stage. He could promise that on that side of the House some of them would do all in their power to protest against the construction of this railway whenever the opportunity might occur. But, even if they allowed that the principle of this Measure was conceded, he supposed it was not asserted that they were bound to carry out the work at all costs. There must be some proportion, he assumed, between the cost and the return, and they were not to be asked to lavish millions of money—money contributed not by that House, but by the workers of this country—upon the sands of Africa. They were not to do the thing for the mere pleasure of doing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them this was the logical outcome of the policy of the occupation of Uganda. He thought they might take exception to that assertion. It was not so regarded by Sir Gerald Portal, who did not regard as at all necessary the construction of the whole of this line as proposed. ["Hear, hear!"] The utmost Sir Gerald Portal insisted upon was the construction of a part, and very much the easiest part, of the line, and they might appeal to the Government to give them some better reason than they had yet given for carrying the line beyond the "halfway-house," up to which point they had a fairly satisfactory and reliable survey. But when they came to the great escarpment of Kikuyu—then they were all at sea. They did not know how they were to get up the escarpment, or how they were to get down. [Laughter.] When they had got to the other side they were met by another great escarpment, and they did not know how they were going to get over that. They were told that the Government, in asking for these three millions, were doing a very businesslike thing, and that they desired to be regarded as men of business. He asked if there were any men of business in this country who would undertake to construct this line from the coast to the Victoria Nyanza for three millions. If so, he would be glad to be introduced to them—[laughter]—because they might be profitable persons to know. In the district which he represented a ditch had to be cut through a piece of country not many miles in extent, and of which, presumably, the conditions of construction might be supposed to be fairly well known. Eminent engineers were employed and expert opinions were received, and the result was that the original estimates had been exceeded about threefold. At the present moment the great Corporation of Manchester was saddled with an enormous debt because it had embarked on an undertaking without seeing the end of it; it was begun without knowing how it was to be finished. This was exactly the case with the Uganda Railway. It was trifling with the House and squandering the taxpayers' money to ask it to begin on an enterprise of this magnitude with a calculation of costs so inadequate, and with a mixture of motives and allegation of reasons which were multifarious, but which did not make up by their multiplicity for their individual weakness. [Cheers.] He hoped that before the House was called upon to read the Bill founded on this Resolution a Second time, it might have something like a rational estimate of cost and a rational estimate of returns to be expected from this railway submitted to its consideration, and something like a definite and clear estimate of the great national advantages which were to be looked for when the railway was completed. ["Hear, hear!"] He would vote against the Resolution which embodied such an enormous and wasteful expenditure.

thought that the hon. Gentleman had not taken the trouble to read the Report of the Committee which had been laid on the Table.

I have studied it with the greatest care.

replied that it was in these circumstances curious to note that the suggestion that the railway should stop 300 miles from the coast was looked upon as likely to throw the traffic on to the German line. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether any proposal was likely to be more popular in Lancashire than the proposal to open up new markets, and whether the Lancashire people did not recognise that the best way in which the Government could help the struggling industries of the country was to open up new markets by such undertakings as were provided for by this Resolution.

presumed that the Manchester Ship Canal, to which the hon. Gentleman opposite had referred, had been well surveyed and estimated for. If the illustration here given of the expenditure exceeding the estimate was to hold good, did the hon. Gentleman not think that the country would be throwing away more money if they continued a closer survey in Uganda than had already been carried out?

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said he did not think it necessary to occupy much time in justifying its introduction. The year before last a Royal Commission on Coal Dust in Mines, presided over by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, made certain suggestions to increase the safety of life in mines, and the former Home Secretary introduced a Bill on the subject which unfortunately did not obtain a Second Reading. If that Bill was necessary, they had had during the last 12 months very sad demonstration that they ought to do what they could to make some further regulations if possible to diminish risk and loss of life in coal mines. Though the Bill of his right hon. Friend opposite did not obtain a Second Reading in the House it was much discussed by colliery owners and workmen in all parts of England and Scotland, and certain arrangements were come to between their representatives which had been extremely useful to the Home Office in framing this Bill. The principal difference in this Bill from that of his right hon. Friend was that it did not propose the constitution of a central board. The House would remember that in the Bill of last year there was a proposal that after fiery and dusty mines had been certified as such there should be an appeal to a central board in London, and if a mine had been proved to be fiery and dusty it should be under special rules as to management, which should be subject to arbitration under the general Act. The proposed central board was the result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but at the same time a somewhat cumbrous way of arriving at the formation of special rules. It was not popular with either owners or workmen, and he therefore did not repeat the proposal in this Bill or propose that there should be district boards in the various districts, which appeared to him to be a still more expensive method of arriving at what they desired to reach. He had adopted the proposal as to special rules, and the Bill proposed to give the Secretary of State certain powers to impose, amend, and modify special rules under the general Act and greater power than he possessed at that moment with regard to lamps, explosives, and the mode of using and storing them, the number of persons to be permitted to remain in the mine, watering or damping the mine, and general precautions for the prevention of accidents. These proposals had been criticised, and he had been asked why he proposed to take powers to make special rules, whereas there might be held to be sufficient power in the Secretary of State under the general Act. He was advised that there were certain new provisions which were strongly recommended by the inspectors, the propriety of which would be acquiesced in by all familiar with the subject, but could not be made the subject of special rules, considering the general rules were statutory regulations in an Act of Parliament against which special rules made by the Secretary of State ought not, without special statutory powers, to prevail. He would take the example of one of the general rules which provided that no further hole for putting in a shot should be bored within 6 inches of a hole where a cartridge had been inserted and had missed fire. The inspectors had agreed in recommending that this should be altered to 12 inches. He hoped the House would agree with the proposed method of arriving at special rules, subject, of course, to appeal under the general Act. The other provisions had reference to providing for abandoned mines, which touched a very important question indeed, and also dealt with inspection and the use of explosives. There were two clauses in the Bill dealing with checkweighing. They really dealt with the question of arrangements as to wages, and they were not, he admitted, material to the Bill. He had considerable doubt as to whether or not he ought to introduce them; but he followed the excellent example of his predecessor in attempting to clear the law, which was in such a state that no one but a lawyer could understand it. ["Hear, hear!"] There were conflicting decisions, which were extremely embarrassing to anyone who had the administration of the law, or who had to make himself acquainted with the law, and those difficulties were not diminished but increased by fresh conflicting decisions by eminent lawyers as to what the law was. He hoped, therefore, that the House would be disposed to consider favourably this attempt to make the law clear in reference to so important a matter. ["Hear, hear!"] Very early in the existence of the Bill he gave a promise that it was not his intention to persevere with the check-weighing clauses, and from that promise he did not feel himself at liberty to withdraw. Therefore at a subsequent stage of the Bill he proposed to withdraw Clauses 3 and 4 of the measure, and leave the Bill one dealing exclusively with safety in the mines. Having had the opportunity of seeing those who were interested in this question from the points of view of the owners and of the men, there appeared to be very little difference between them, and between them in the aggregate and the Home Office. He had gone carefully through the Bill. He had considered the objections and suggestions made to him from many quarters, and, without labouring the details of the Bill, he might say with reference to Clause 2—representation on arbitration—he should be ready to adopt a clause agreed to between the owners and the representatives of the men with reference to the election of those representatives in arbitration cases. With reference to Clause 5, he should be prepared to make it more definite and the scale in Clause 6 might be more accurately defined. As regarded the first paragraph of Clause 7, it had never been the intention of the inspectors, upon whose advice this clause was drafted, that there should be that immoderate demand for inspection, which meant impracticability, and the words "the condition of which may affect the safety of persons working in the mine" were intended to be limiting words. If those words were not sufficient, the words "adjacent to the roadways and working places" might be introduced, to indicate what were the places which ought to be inspected, when inspection was necessary. Clause 8, to which he attached considerable importance, gave powers to prohibit certain classes of explosives. Objection had been made that it was a very strong power to put into the hands of the Secretary of State, and it had been suggested to him that it ought to be under a special rule which should be subject to arbitration. But he hoped the House would support him in the view that it was rather in the direction of a general rule, about which there was a large amount of evidence pointing to the fact that scientific and practical men would in a short time agree as to the nature of the explosives that should be used in the mines. The Bill was not a very ambitious Bill; but he hoped that it devised some useful and practical method for saving life in the mines. He proposed, when the Bill was read a Second time, to refer it to the Grand Committee on Trade; and from what he had heard he confidently relied on assistance from all quarters to make it a good and effective Measure. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he desired to re-echo, as far as he could, and reinforce the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House to read the Bill unanimously a Second time. It was impossible to exaggerate the urgency of the dangers with which the Bill dealt. It was not until the investigation by the Royal Commission presided over by his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Colonies was completed that the difference of opinion which had previously existed amongst experts as to how far coal dust was an effective cause of colliery explosions was finally set at rest. But since the completion of that Commission, amplified and extended in other countries as well as our own, he did not believe there was any difference of opinion worth considering at all on that point; and we were now rapidly coming round to the view that not only was coal dust an effective means, but was far more than any other means the cause of dangerous and disastrous explosions in our mines. The existing law—the Act of 1887—was wholly inadequate to deal with that particular form of danger, for the simple reason that at the time the Bill was prepared the attention of experts was directed to dangers arising from gas and falls of roof; and the danger of coal dust had not yet been accurately gauged. It appeared to him the moment the Report of the Commission was presented, containing in an authentic form evidence to sustain those conclusions, that it was the duty of those responsible for the administration of the mining laws to invite the attention of Parliament to the matter and to place upon the Statute-book more effective safeguards for the lives and limbs of our mining population. Accordingly, having taken all the pains he could to ascertain the feelings of those interested in the matter, he laid before the House last year a Bill of which this Bill was in some respects a copy and in other respects a development and an improvement. It was a matter of very great regret to him and to all his late colleagues that they had not been in a position to carry that Bill into law before Parliament was dissolved last year. But the fault did not rest with them, nor, indeed, did it rest with anybody. The cause of the delay consisted in the fact that representatives of the owners and representatives of the miners were anxious to meet together to discuss in confidence the questions raised by the Bill, and he decided to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill in order that when it came before the House the House might be able to approach its consideration with some unanimity of opinion, and thus improve its chance of passing into law. That was the only reason why the Bill of the late Government had not been placed upon the Statute-book. He was glad the subject had been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the spirit which they expected from him, and that the right hon. Gentleman had placed in the Bill a series of provisions which, if they passed into law, would, in his opinion and in the opinion of everyone who had studied the matter, have the effect of saving hundreds of lives which were at present exposed to avoidable dangers in mines. He agreed that the Bill ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, where it could be discussed with more detail and with greater advantage. It differed from the Bill of last year in the omission of the provision which that Bill contained for the creation of a central board. He had inserted that provision in his Bill in deference to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which came, he thought, unanimously to the conclusion that it was desirable to have such a board for the purpose of defining and scheduling the mines of the country and dangers of mines to which this special legislation ought to be applied. But he was against the creation of that new authority, having in view the expense it necessarily involved and the possibility of delay in its working, unless it was an expedient that was absolutely necessary. The more this matter was discussed with the representatives of the owners and the men, the more it was found that on both sides there was a great indisposition to this central authority, while there was no similar unanimity as to whether or not it would be desirable to substitute local hoards in the coal mining districts. In those circumstances he thought the right hon. Gentleman had been wise in leaving out the provision which might complicate the proceedings and engender unnecessary delay. The proposed procedure by special rules followed his own proposals; but he had always felt strongly the objections to this mode of procedure. Although special rules might be laid down after the most careful deliberation and consultation with all the persons concerned and the highest experts, yet a single mine owner, who chose to make factious and unnecessary objections, might compel the Secretary of State to proceed to arbitration; and in rules of this kind arbitration was a most costly, cumbrous, and dilatory proceeding, and often had the effect of postponing the operations of the rules for months and even years. When he was at the Home Office a series of special rules were proposed for a South Wales district, and the owners—he would not say unreasonably—referred the case to arbitration. That arbitration went on for months; huge costs were piled up on both sides; and in the end some of the rules had to be abandoned, others were the subject of compromise, and the whole arbitration proceedings were rendered nugatory. He could not help fearing that that unhappy precedent might be followed in the future, and that provisions which were urgently necessary for the protection of life might, be postponed; but the difficulty was to suggest any other course. This was interference of the most drastic kind with the way in which these large industries were carried on; and it was impossible to deny that the persons affected were entitled to be heard before provisions which might be inapplicable to particular cases were brought into effect. He had sometimes thought that the end might be attained if the procedure provided by some of the provisions of the Factory Acts were adopted; and if rules of this kind made by the Secretary of State were to come into force after having been laid on the Table of both Houses without any objection being taken to them within a certain not excessive period of time. That course would give publicity; it would give the interests concerned an opportunity of being heard; and it would obviate some of the more serious dangers of arbitration. As to the special rules themselves, they were to deal with matters which the investigations of the Royal Commission had shown to be of the most vital importance—the description of the explosive to be used in the mine, the persons allowed to remain while shots are being fired, and, most important of all, the watering and damping of mines. The inquiries of the Commission had shown that it was quite possible to lay down rules which would not impose excessive expense on the mine owner. In many of the most dangerous mines every precaution which the Secretary of State could suggest under these powers was now being observed, and accidents were there very rare. Therefore he could not suppose that the imposition of these precautions would be a hardship. He entirely agreed with the Home Secretary that power ought to be taken to act independently of special rules—to prohibit the use of explosives of a certain class in mines, after due notice, if the Secretary of State were satisfied that it were likely to be dangerous. Science could now discriminate between those classes of explosive agents which could be safely used and those which could not; and in a vast number of instances the prohibition of explosives at improper times and in improper places would be a power of infinite advantage to the mining community. As to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to omit all those provisions which did not come within the category of life-saving or life-protecting provisions, he must say he viewed with regret, the disappearance of the clause which dealt with checkweighing. ["Hear, hear!"] The state of the law on that subject at the present time was nothing short of scandalous. When he was at the Home Office he used to take opinions from the Law Officers on the subject; and as the Law Officers changed frequently he got a great variety of opinions. [Laughter.] He believed that one of the first steps of the present Government was to take the opinion of the new Law Officers, and that the opinion of those gentlemen differed in every fundamental point from that of their predecessors. [Laughter.] He did not say that with the view of casting any reflection on the professors of the law. [Laughter.] It proved that a law, in reference to which it was possible for the most skilled and expert, advisers to take such diametrically opposite opinions in the course of a few years, was not in the requisite state of clearness. ["Hear, hear!"] These differences of opinion among the Law Officers had been paralleled by the differences of opinion among the Judges in Court. He did not believe there was any mine owner in this country who at this moment knew whether the system of deductions observed in his mines was legal or illegal, and whether he was not, by carrying on a system which might even have been agreed to between master and men, exposing himself to daily penalties. ["Hear, hear!"] The law being admittedly in that condition, it was regrettable that an attempt to make it clear, such as was contained in Clause 3, had to be abandoned. It was a clause which had been the subject of much misapprehension outside, and he hoped that, if not in the present Session, then in subsequent years, such modifications as had been shown to be necessary might form the subject of a separate enactment. ["Hear, hear!"] But he agreed that the chances of this Bill ought not to be imperilled by the introduction of disputable matter which was extraneous to its primary purpose—the protection of life. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman would have with him the universal approval of all concerned in abandoning for the time being those particular provisions, and in asking the House to concentrate its attention on what was so necessary for the safety of the mining population. He hoped the House would respond to the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, and give a speedy Second Reading to the Bill that it might be sent to the Standing Committee. [Cheers.]

said that every one would approve the principle of the Bill; but he had listened with regret to the statement of the Home Secretary announcing that Clause 3 was to be dropped. He found that the men who were engaged in the colliery industry were strongly opposed to the dropping of the clause. A very favourable opportunity was presented for disentangling the complications of the law; and if this opportunity were lost it was not likely that it would recur during the present Parliament. After any question had been the subject of legislation it was very seldom that it was taken up again in the lifetime of the same Parliament. According to the clause itself deductions could not be made unless the men and masters were agreed, and the deductions must be reasonable according to the judgment of the tribunal before whom the case was taken. He understood that the Bill was to be sent to the Committee shorn of these clauses, and that, therefore, the Committee would not have an opportunity of discussing their merits. Why not allow the Committee to discover the weak points of the clauses if there were any? The Debates on trade Bills which took place in the Committee were almost void of Party feeling, and not more than one or two sittings need be occupied in the discussion of the clauses. If after discussion they were found to be very controversial they could be dropped. Rather than drop the clauses now, he was almost inclined to advise that the Bill should be dropped and brought in next Session.

thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down spoke for a very small portion of the people he represented when he said they were in favour of proceeding with the clause respecting deductions. The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, heard the Home Secretary say that certain meetings were held last year between the coalowners' and workmen's representatives at which matters affecting this Bill were agreed to. It was a strange testimony to the position the hon. Gentleman had taken up that this clause was about the only one which the owners' and miners' representatives were not agreed upon.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why the late Home Secretary introduced a similar clause?

said the late Home Secretary did so without the sanction of the representatives of the workmen; if he had consulted them before doing so, they would unquestionably have advised him not to introduce the clause. Dealing with this question of deductions, and looking at it with a practical, and not a legal eye, he desired to say that if he were in favour of the deductions as stated in the Bill, he should certainly have approved entirely of the decision of the Home Secretary to drop the clause, because a more unworkable clause was never, in his opinion, put into any Bill. Looking at Sub-section (b) of the clause, with his knowledge of a mine—and he did not know much about anything else—he found that, not only was the agreement as to deductions to be sanctioned by mutuality between employers and employed, but it was to have due regard to the nature of the mine and to all the circumstances connected with the place.

That could be put right in Committee.

said he was speaking now of the Bill as it stood, and he was assigning a reason why the House should approve of the withdrawal of the clause. It was impossible for any court outside a mine to give a decision except after a thorough investigation of the men's work took place. He was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seton-Karr), disregarding the lives of the workmen, say that he was prepared on account of this little controversial matter to see the Bill deferred for another year.

I said nothing of the kind.

said he understood from what the hon. Gentleman stated that he was inclined to see the Bill withdrawn for this year.

said the hon. Gentleman was putting a construction on his words which he never intended they should bear.

continuing, said that in his opinion the Home Secretary had taken not only a wise course but a very humane one in withdrawing the clause relating to deductions, and in devoting his attention entirely to that which would save life in our mines. The late Home Secretary said that the result of the Commission on Coal-dust was to draw the attention of the country to the danger of the presence of dust in our mines. There were certain men in the House who for 16 or 17 years had been trying to convince Parliament of the danger that lay in dust. It had been the lot of some hon. Members to be mixed up in these matters. From the year 1880, when, at Seaham 175 men lost their lives, those hon. Members had been trying to prove to scientific men, who had turned a deaf ear to them, that the real danger in mines, so far as explosion was concerned, lay in the dust that accumulated on the timbers and ledges of the mine. But the Home Secretary had said that during the last 12 months this teaching had been enforced. It was quite true, and he was entirely at one with the Home Secretary, that it was quite time that the Government should say what explosives should be used in the mines of this country. His experience was that so long as they had an explosive that would emit flame, where the dust had been allowed to accumulate, so long would the lives of the miners be in danger. In Somerset two explosions had occurred in mines in which no gas had been found. With regard to the late explosion in Durham through which 20 men lost their lives, the manager of the mine would tell them that gas had not been seen for many years in the mine, and the testimony at the inquest at Brancepeth showed that the mine was not a dry and dusty one. Not a single workman, or manager, or expert would say that the mine was dry and dusty. The appearance of the place where the explosion took place proved that the men had been watering but had not watered high enough. Therefore if in a mine that was not dry and dusty, where gas had not been seen for years, an explosion took place, what was the teaching? It was this, that it was time that some authoritative body should take it in hand, to say how explosives were to be manufactured and what kind of explosive was to be used. He also gave a general approval to that part of the Bill which related to plans being provided. He believed that in many cases lives would have been spared if that provision had been in force. The Bill embodied as nearly as possible the points on which the mineowners and the workmen had come to any agreement; and he had been sorry to see the House occupied for days and weeks on matters of very much less importance, and which might safely, and properly, and justifiably have been put aside. They had been playing at politics while lives had been lost on every hand. Why, he asked, should the clause relating to checkweighmen be withdrawn? The present Act of Parliament gave workmen power to appoint their principal checkweighmen, and all the Bill did was to provide that when a checkweighman was ill or away from work, they should be allowed to appoint a substitute. The conduct of certain districts had forced this on the attention of the country. In his county the men were allowed to appoint a substitute, and that was the case wherever there was mutual agreement. He had never heard such an immoderate demand as was put forward in the clause relating to inspection. It would mean, even in the modified form suggested by the Home Secretary, that a man would be occupied three or four hours every day inspecting the work. It would be a grand thing if the House would pass this Bill with the controversial clauses eliminated.

said the Report of the Explosives Committee had not been a dead letter, although no legislation had been passed. It was within his knowledge that mining engineers had applied themselves to that report with a view to adopting the Committee's suggestions so far as they were applicable to particular cases, and he had no doubt that much had already been done in consequence of the Report to diminish the danger of mining operations. With regard to the proposal for proceeding by special rules, he hoped the suggestion of the late Home Secretary would receive careful consideration by the Standing Committee. Special rules might be passed which would have the effect of superseding the general rules embodied in the present law. That was a very serious thing, especially when it was remembered that every person connected with the management of a colliery carried on his work under a criminal liability, not only for his own acts but for the acts of every one employed in the mine. It was admitted that in many cases the formation of the special rules would load to arbitration, and the umpire was to be the County Court Judge of the district. There was to be no selection by the Home Office of judges whose knowledge of mining questions would give them a facility and aptitude for dealing with these special questions. That was an important matter, and they ought to consider whether it would not be better to adopt the plan proposed by the late Home Secretary. He regretted as much as anyone that the so called contentious clauses were not to be discussed, but it would be a great pity if the safety part of the Bill were lost by reason of the difficulty in dealing with these other clauses. He hoped the Home Secretary would give a reasonable hope of expectation that an early opportunity would be found for dealing with these difficult clauses. It was as much in the interests of the workmen as of the employers that the subject with which they dealt should be put on a stable and satisfactory basis.

, said he approved of the course taken by the Government, because he feared that at this late period of the Session the Bill would otherwise be lost. If the Bill had been brought in earlier he should have been desirous of seeing checkweighing and deductions carefully considered, because he could not help thinking that some of his hon. Friends beside him, who represented mining constituencies, were a little too fond of speaking as if they represented the whole of the mining industry of this country. They, in Scotland, had not got these comfortable deductions which had been arranged in Durham, Northunberland and North Yorks. They were exposed to attempts, some of them very remarkable attempts, to get round the policy of the Mines Regulation Act, as expounded by the House of Lords, by means of devices which might or might not be legal, but which at any rate were not clearly covered by the present law, and the Home Secretary had put into Clause 3 a provision which certainly would have been most useful to them, and he suspected would have been extremely useful to some of the constituents of his hon. Friends. This clause proposed, among other things, that an agreement to vary wages in accordance with the amount of slack, coal dust, and other materials which were brought up by the miner, should be void as being contrary to the principle of the Bill. Hon. Members would appreciate the meaning of that if they realised that the Act of 1872, and the Act of 1887 which took its place, constituted the Miners' Charter, and they provided that miners were to be paid according to weight and according to weight only, and that they were to be paid according to the weight of the materials got. The matter could not be gone into, however, without considerable difference of opinion, and therefore he was willing that it should be omitted. He congratulated the Home Secretary upon the introduction of a clause which gave him absolute power to prohibit any explosive he might consider dangerous. A Government inspector had made a series of researches into the explosive quality of the dust of the principal seams in the country. An explosion of coal dust had occurred which led to a great loss of life, and which might have been avoided if the Home Secretary possessed the power which the clause proposed to give him. He was glad that the clause had not the qualification of arbitration, because the Secretary of State was the most competent person to exercise discretion in a matter of this kind. He trusted that if the Bill passed the right hon. Gentleman would be able to get such scientific knowledge on explosives as would enable him to frame rules more drastic than any they had at present. He did not see why it should not be the rule in every pit that spray should be used to water the coal dust, and he would like to see that enforced by Act of Parliament. The proper body to judge about special rules was the Home Office in the first instance, and then the House of Commons, upon the Table of which these Rules might be laid.

said he must give the Home Secretary great credit for his desire to pass the Bill in its entirety when there were a great many conflicting views held in regard to it. While he and others did not propose to offer any serious objection to the Second Reading, there were certain clauses which were absurd and impracticable. One of them was the clause relating to the inspection of mines and roadways. He did not believe it would be impossible in Committee, however, to frame a clause which would make it practicable for the roadways in use and travelled by the men and possibly one or two roadways at the airways, to be inspected. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire entirely in some of the suggestions he had put before the House. These arbitrations were extremely costly affairs, and if the mine owners had very often been successful in their arbitrations it was because they had had right and justice on their side. The Secretary of State would do well to bear in mind that even with the non-contentious clauses there would have to be very full discussion in Committee. Care must be taken with regard to the classification of mines. He would reiterate what he had said at a previous stage, that no mineowner would go into arbitration without very good cause. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not in Committee oppose the suggestion which had been made with reference to Clause 8. The state of the coal trade was one of extreme depression at the present time—[an HON. MEMBER: "Why"?]—because of foreign competition, the vast amount of bounties, and the state of the coal rates at shipping ports. Our shipping rates were much too high. He expressed his desire to assist the right hon. Gentleman in passing this Bill through Committee with the modifications which he had referred to. On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval.

whose opening remarks were interrupted by an ineffectual Motion to count the House, said he had no intention of standing for long in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill. He thought the Home Secretary was undoubtedly right in dropping the clauses which were considered contentious. He had always endeavoured to co-operate in any legislation which would have the effect of saving the lives of the workmen in mines. He considered that any Member of the House who, with a knowledge of the number of men who were annually killed and injured in mines, did not support any Bill which would in any case prevent accidents, would be committing a serious error of judgment. Although he would like to see a far more comprehensive Measure than this, at the same time he was convinced that there were some things in the Bill which, if passed into law, would assist in preventing loss of life and serious injury. With regard to those Members in the House who had a commission to speak against the Bill, he was pleased to find that the Member for Preston was willing that it should go to the Standing Committee.

denied that he had any commission to speak against the Bill. He was as anxious as anybody in the House that everything should be done that could be done to prevent accident.

said he was pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman had no such commission. With regard to Clause 3, which was to be left out, he maintained that the mining community, apart from one or two districts in Scotland, did not wish for it. It was purely a matter for some local collieries in Scotland. He was sorry that the Home Secretary did not propose to assume more stringent powers with regard to damping. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would refuse to undertake that the subject referred to in Clause 8 should be treated as a matter for arbitration. If anything could be done to strengthen the Bill without jeopardising it he should be glad.

said that as one who formerly occupied the position of Home Secretary, and who now represented a large population of miners, he wished to congratulate the Home Secretary on the introduction of this Bill, believing that it would prove to be one of the most important, if not the most important, Measure that the Government had brought forward. There had been that evening general agreement among the representatives of the various interests concerned in mining. He trusted that the same harmony would prevail in the Grand Committee, and that there would be no disposition to delay the Bill in any way. The time at their disposal was now short. If the Bill were to meet with opposition, or even if any attempt were made to alter it extensively in Grand Committee, it might be placed in great jeopardy. They must remember that it would have to come back to that House, and that it would then have to pass through the House of Lords. He trusted, therefore, that no unnecessary points would be raised in the Committee. It was a matter for regret that it should have been found necessary to drop some part of the Bill. What remained was the minimum of what was required, and it ought to be regarded as the irreducible minimum. If it should be found possible to strengthen the Bill it would be desirable to do so, but, as he had said, every care must be taken not to jeopardise the Measure.

said he joined in hoping that the Home Secretary would be able to pass all the clauses relating to safety. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for St. Helen's, when he spoke about dropping the Bill, had no idea of jeopardising the lives of any persons. Many able lawyers thought that the powers in Clause 1 were latent in the Act of 1887. He hoped thought the legal officers of the Crown would see that Clause 1 did not limit the present power of the Home Secretary. There were some points in the Bill which might require some discussion, but he did not think they were very great. He regretted very much that Clause 3 had been dropped. He thought it would probably never be agreed upon until the miners and employers met and arranged it, and he believed there was a wholesome wish on both sides for fair play. The legal decisions that coal dust, if brought to the surface, must be paid for as coal, was most remarkable. What would be said if a builder who agreed to pay so much for sandstone, and got sand instead, was told that it was part of the material contracted to be got? It rested with the lawyers to set that straight. As to Clause 5, he thought important faults or throws ought to be recorded. He held that the present law was sufficient for abandoned mines, there should be a period of 10 years in which the plans should be open to the inspectors to secure safety. If they were open to the public a use might be made of them which would be unfair to the mine owners. As to the clause for inspection, it required defining. As to Clause 8, he thought the Home Secretary should have power to at once suspend the use of an explosive, subject to the rules of arbitration, so that an explosive might not be tabood by a partisan scientist. He hoped the Bill would be rapidly brought forward, and become an Act.

expressed his gratification at the fact that the Bill had met with so much approval on both sides of the House. Legislation of this kind had no terrors for the best mine owners in the country, but it was required in order that others might be made to conform to the standard which they set. The late Home Secretary had explained that he was very much in favour of having all special rules laid upon the Table of the House. He should himself prefer a continuance of the present system, because these special rules were highly technical, and any error in connection with them might have most serious consequences. It was better, therefore, to leave them to be dealt with by experts. The Government, he thought, were acting wisely in dropping Clause 3. It was said that Clause 4 was a trivial one, but his experience was, and probably that of the whole of the owners in the northern counties, that instead of the checkweighman being a disadvantage he was positively an advantage to the employer. The checkweighman was one of the most intelligent workmen, and he could not understand why there should be any objection to a substitute being appointed in case of the checkweighman being unable to attend. The workmen found in ordinary practice that it was neither to their interest nor to the interest of the owners that men should be appointed who were not likely to work amicably with the owner. He had found that if a checkweighman caused disputes with the owners on trifling matters, he did not long occupy the position to which he was appointed by the workmen themselves. He considered that Clause 7, as it stood at present, was quite impracticable; there was scarcely a single part of the mine which might not be brought under this clause. He was, therefore, glad to find that the clause was to be altered. As to Clause 8 and explosives, he said from his own experience that it caused great anxiety to most owners as to what explosives they should use. It was found that experts varied in their opinion as to the safety of explosives. One manager supported one kind of explosive while the manager of the adjoining mine supported another, and he had had a great difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to which was the safest and best explosive, to use. If the Government chose to take the responsibility from off the shoulders of the owners he did not think that the owners would seriously object. Sometimes owners had a difficulty in enforcing a particular explosive on the workmen themselves, because the workmen had been accustomed to use a particular kind of explosive which they knew how to work, and which they preferred to work to that which the mineowner considered to be less dangerous. He had known of serious disputes arising in cases where owners had tried to enforce the use of an explosive objected to by the men. It would, therefore, be a great advantage to the mineowners to have some decided opinion from the Home Office, so that they might be able to enforce the use of an explosive without any difficulty, and one which the Home Office considered to be the safest for the mine. No Measure that had been submitted to the House during this Session would, if passed, give greater satisfaction both to the owners and to the miners than this Bill

said that his hon. Friend the Member for the Normanton Division had spoken of this Bill in civil terms, but appeared to think that it was not deserving of the commendations passed upon it. He thought that there had been a good deal of exaggeration with reference to the Bill. After all it was a very small Bill. The object sought to be attained in the first clause, for example, could in the opinion of many lawyers be accomplished without any Bill at all, and merely by an amendment of the existing rules. The Home Secretary said that he had not the power to alter the rules, but he thought that the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave that day was less confident than the one he gave a few days ago, when he thought that he could not make rules to the effect of Clause 1, because they would be inconsistent with the statutory rules. But the contention of the lawyers was that the right hon. Gentleman could make such rules, because they were in addition to rather than in substitution of them. This Bill was a very small Measure indeed, and carried them but a little way. The hon. Member for St. Helens was right in one portion of his contention, when he said that if they passed this Bill they would not get another during the present Parliament. It was, therefore, parting with a great deal to allow this Bill to pass when the miners of the country had proposals of legislation which went far beyond the scope of this Bill. He asked hon. Members who wished to take an impartial view of the question to compare the provisions of the Miners' Conference Bill with the provisions of this Measure. This Bill contained nine clauses, two of which were to be dropped. Of the remaining seven, two were practically not in the Miners' Conference Bill; but there was more hope of saving life by the passing of the Miners' Bill with the addition of the two Government clauses than there was by the passing of the present Measure. On the whole, however, the miners accepted the situation. They had made up their minds that it was better to accept this Bill than to refuse it. Amendments to this Bill had been prepared, but they proposed to take the advice tendered by the Leader of the Opposition and not to move them; so that the Amendments which he had prepared would not be placed on the Paper. Would the owners he prepared to take the same course? It was late in the year; and if this arrangement was adopted the Bill could easily pass through the Standing Committee.

did not agree with the right hon. Baronet that this was a small Bill. On the contrary, he regarded the Bill as a very important one. He should have been glad if Clause 3 had been retained, so that it might have gone before the Committee and been fully discussed there by practical men, for, in that case, he thought it not improbable that such Amendments might have been suggested as afterwards to render the clause workable and acceptable to the House. He re-echoed the congratulations offered to the Home Secretary on the courage he had shown in bringing this Bill forward. ["Hear, hear!"] There could be no doubt that many mine-owners were not as keen in regard to the dangers of mining as they ought to be, and did not properly provide for the safety of their workmen. He was sorry the third clause was omitted, as in South Wales there was a custom known as the sliding scale, which for many years formed the basis upon which the rate of wages paid was fixed. It had worked satisfactorily, and Clause 3 was intended to legalise this arrangement. Still, the Measure was in the interests of the miner, and he hoped that no obstacle would be presented, either in Committee or in the House, to its passing into law as soon as possible. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he felt bound to express regret, in the name of the miners of his own constituency and of the West of Scotland generally, that the third and fourth clauses of the Bill had been dropped. The miners recognised the importance of those clauses, because they dealt with matters which very closely affected them, and with regard to many of which grievances existed. There was nothing in the work of the miners which caused more heartburning and dissatisfaction than the differences in connection with checkweighing. One of the keenest of those grievances on the part of the men was that there was no facility for checking or testing the weighing machines, and it was to be regretted that this and some other technical matters of working detail, which were of much importance to the fair and smooth working of the industry, were not dealt with in the Bill. He gladly recognised, however, that the primary object of the Measure was to still further protect the miner, and he hoped it would pass without delay. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he should not have intervened in the Debate but for certain remarks made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that there was antagonism between masters and men in this matter. He believed that was entirely wrong. He did not believe there was any feeling of antagonism whatever between the two classes in the great coal industry. ["Hear, hear!"] The interests of both were really the same, and he always regretted to hear, in discussion on questions such as the present, remarks made which were calculated to produce controversy and differences. [Hear, hear!"] He held it to be a paramount duty on the part of the House of Commons to do all it could, by way of legislation, to protect the health and life of the miner, and therefore he much regretted that the Home Secretary had been compelled, through the necessities of the hour, to withdraw the third and fourth clauses. He hoped, however, that the matters to which those clauses referred would be dealt with in another Bill at a time not far distant; and if the Home Secretary could give the House some assurance to this effect it would greatly facilitate proceedings in the Standing Committee. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had had the courage to insert a clause in the Bill dealing with the question of explosives. He had undertaken a great responsibility in doing so, for the matter was one of enormous importance, and he only hoped the House would give the right hon. Gentleman all the powers he sought, in order to act in the interest both of life and property. [Cheers.]

also expressed regret that it had been found necessary to drop the two clauses referred to, for they were of great importance to the men especially, as had been already said, in regard to the very sore point of checkweighing. The question of deduction was also an important matter to the men; it was the cause of much injustice and ill-feeling, and those and other cognate matters would have to be dealt with sooner or later in justice to the miner. Nevertheless he welcomed the present Bill, weakened though it was by the omission of the third and fourth clauses, as a further step in the protection of the coal miners, and he sincerely hoped that every facility would be given to enable the Measure to pass into law this Session.

congratulated the Home Secretary, knowing the anxiety which the Bill had given to the right hon. Gentleman, on the reception it had mot with in all quarters of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the question of deductions, he expressly said, when he interpolated a remark in the course of the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that he did not speak as a lawyer. But he did speak with more than 35 years' practical experience of this industry behind him. He endorsed emphatically what fell from the hon. Member for Mid Durham, who spoke from the point of view of the miner, upon this question—that that clause, as it was now framed, was absolutely and entirely unworkable. He was very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman had acceded to the suggestion made to him some months ago to drop certain portions of the Measure. He did not at all hold with the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that because these portions were not dealt with this year they would not receive the attention of the House during the present Parliament. He thought they might well be brought forward in a Bill next year. As to the matter of explosives and shot-firing, which were really at the root of the whole matter, Clause 1 of the Bill seemed to him to be of the most vital and valuable nature. He was entirely at issue with the Member of the Forest of Dean when he called this a very little Bill. He believed that, even if they stripped it of what he might call the economical matters and left only the provisions with regard to the safety of life and limb, the Bill would be the most valuable Measure they would have passed this Session. If he had any complaint to make it was that the Government did not let them have it before Easter, so that they might have more ample opportunities of considering it. He hoped that when the Bill went to the Committee upstairs the Homo Secretary would resist all Amendments and suggestions which would in any way tend to weaken and impoverish the Bill. He would warn the right hon. Gentleman that the unanimously favourable reception of the Bill that night by no means implied that all its dangers were over. Therefore he did hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he got the Bill upstairs, would keep hold of its provisions, and would strengthen rather than weaken them. He hoped, too, he would take care that the First Lord of the Treasury afforded him an early opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon it on Report. Then he felt satisfied that, when the question that the Bill be read a Third time was put from the Chair and carried unanimously, as he hoped it would be, they would have placed on the Statute-book a Measure inferior to none in its importance to the labouring population of this country.

desired, as a representative of a constituency in which there was a very large number of miners, to add his humble testimony and gratitude to the Home Secretary for the pains he had taken with this Bill. He entirely agreed with the remark of his hon. Friend opposite that the Bill was a great step in advance, and they recognised with gratitude the great advantages which were held out to them by its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman had shown considerable courage in carrying the Bill as far as he had done in spite of the considerable opposition of both sides of the question. There were private opinions upon the advisability of dropping the third clause. The miners in his district were in favour of that course, but the coalowners would have wished that the clause should have been continued in the Bill. Personally he thought the right hon. Gentleman had exercised a very sound discretion in dropping the clause. He trusted that later on they would have a still greater advance in this matter, and still further benefits conferred upon the working population engaged in, perhaps, the most hazardous industry in the country. He believed the Bill was a safe and wise one so far as it went, and, though it was not perfect, it should receive his complete and cordial support. The right hon. Gentleman had effected a very great advance in the direction they had all desired for many years—that of greater protection for the life and limbs of the miners, especially in the county he represented.

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would have the courage, when the Bill reached the Committee stage, to eliminate practically all the Amendments from the masters' and men's side, and ask the Committee to accept only his own Amendments in the direction of slightly improving the Bill. If he did that there was no reason why the Committee should he engaged more than one day upon the Bill. Considering the lateness of the Session, and the necessity of the safety clauses in the Bill, he thought that, on the whole, the Home Secretary had pursued the line of least resistance in dropping the clauses he had indicated. He was prepared to admit with the Member for the Forest of Dean that it was not an ideal Bill, but then they did not live in an ideal world, and they were not Members of an ideal House of Commons. All he could say was that he trusted the Bill was the premonitory symptoms of a better Bill, if not next year the year following. The Member for the Forest of Dean said with truth that under theoretical conditions the Bill of the Miners' Conference was a better Bill than this. He agreed, but the miners were not in office, and the Government were. The Government had had to deal with a complex and difficult subject, with a varying opposition from all the interests that were affected by it. He sincerely trusted the Home Secretary would take notice of one or two discordant notes that had proceeded from his own side of the House. From his knowledge of the hon. Members for St. Helens and Preston, he found that what they hinted or whispered was generally stage thunder when they got upstairs in the Committee room. He hoped the two hon. Gentlemen would have engagements elsewhere when the Bill reached the Committee. If that were so, so much better for the Bill. If they were not then inclined to take a holiday, his suggestion to the Home Secretary was that he should give them a hint to do so. He did not agree with what had been said by an hon. Member representing a Scotch constituency as to the unwisdom of dropping Clause 3. He believed that the Bill, minus the dropped clauses, would, perhaps, be enough to get through, considering the lateness of the Session, whilst if they were to consider Clause 3 upstairs the Measure would be jeopardised. He emphasised, as to Clause 3, what had just been said by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division. He put it in this form. However good an Act of Parliament might be for the regulation of any industry, it was practically futile and useless unless it had the semblance of the workmen's organisation at their back to see that that regulation was carried out. His suggestion to the Scotch miners was that they should plank down their bawbees for a Trades Union and up would come coal and wages. Whilst, if they did not do that, then they would permanently suffer from the disadvantages they now laboured under, and that was the lack of organisation such as Durham and Northumberland had had for many years. With regard to Clause 1, good as it was, he regretted that it was to be subject to an appeal to an arbitration court, under the conditions defined in Clause 53 of the Mines Regulation Act of 1887, which, he contended, would considerably minimise some of the advantages of the special rules mentioned in the clause. He objected to special rules of this kind being subject to an arbitration court at all. It seemed to him that the Homo Office, after having consulted its inspectors and scientific experts, ought to bring their special rules up to date in the light of practical experience and scientific evidence, and there ought not to be any appeal against the special rules when the latest inspectorial and scientific evidence had declared those rules to be the best available for the industrial conditions they were to govern. He regretted extremely that the Home Secretary had not attached sufficient importance to flooding as well as to shot-firing, to gunpowder and to dangerous and gaseous mines. The hon. and gallant Member for the Ince Division of Lancashire had said he thought Clause 5, as to a plan for abandoned mines, was a bit too strong. But no one who had read the account of the Audley pit disaster, in which, owing to Hooding, 77 miners lost their lives, would think that the clause with regard to plans of abandoned mines and workings as a bit too stringent. In that case the manager was under the impression that he was 80 yards from the face of the old working when he was not more than from 10 to 20 feet at the outside. That showed the necessity for not only having plans of workings that had been recently abandoned, but also as far as practical and geological conditions permitted, of all the old workings in the neighbourhood of any pit. Whilst he admitted the wisdom of dropping Clause 3 until there had been presented to the House of Commons a practically unanimous view both of masters and men, as to what they desired Parliament to do with regard to deductions in general, he could not see the reason why Clause 4 was deleted. He put it to the Home Secretary that if men were good enough to be elected to an arbitration court under this Bill, they were good enough to elect a deputy checkweighman to take the place of a checkweighman who, for any cause, was absent. As a matter of fact, the greater ought to include the less, and it seemed to him a more important duty for miners to elect a representative to sit in the arbitration court than for them to elect a deputy checkweighman. It was casting an aspersion, inferentially, upon the deputy checkweighmen for them not to he elected precisely in the same way as the chief checkweighmen were, and he trusted the Home Secretary would see his way to rendering into law what Durham and well-organised districts had carried out in practice for a number of years. He urged the right hon. Gentleman not to whittle Clause 7 away in any respect, nor to minimise the powers of inspection. As to Clause 8, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for the Ince Division on this particular point. If a mine was of such a character that one had to be very careful as to the explosives that were used, it seemed to him unnecessary that a month's notice should be given from the Home Office to the owner of that mine as to the character and disappearance of the explosives that caused explosions. If there was reasonable grounds for suspecting danger, the Home Secretary ought to have power under this Bill to at once suspend the use of any dangerous explosive, and should not be compelled to give a month's notice. That brought him to his last point, and he wished to supplement what had been said by the hon. Member for Haddington as to the necessity for more money being spent in practical experiments with coal dust and every phase and ramification of mine operations under every conceivable circumstance. He re-echoed the opinion of that House, and of the mining population generally, when he praised the last experiments conducted, not only by Mr. Hall, but by Dr. Haldane, who deserved credit for the disinterested researches he had made into this whole question. He did not see why one or two mineowners should not be subsidised for the use of entirely worked-out mines, so that practical experiments could be conducted with a view to prevent some of the lamentable accidents which now occurred simply because they spent more money in testing cordite cartridges in one year in order to send men to "kingdom come," than they had spent in 50 years in trying to save 50,000 miners who had been killed. He urged the Home Secretary not to be influenced by the hon. Member for Falkirk, who had said that the coal trade was in such a condition that it ought not to be seriously interfered with, and that there ought not to be too much inspection, restrictions, and supervisions, which would result in England suffering from foreign competition. That was the same old cry that confronted Ostler, Sadlier, and Lord Shaftesbury when they spoke in that House 50 or 70 years ago. But in this case, with regard to coal, it was less true that of any other industry that could be quoted. Why did the hon. Member for Falkirk not give figures? If he had given them figures between the years 1883 and 1895, they would have found that their output of coal had jumped up from 163,000,000 tons in 1883, to 190,000,000 in 1895. That was not an indication either of declining trade or foreign competition affecting them. If the hon. Member had gone from the amount to the value of the coal produced, he would have found there was no reason either for anxiety or despair. Again, if he had taken the number of tons raised by English miners on higher wages and shorter hours as compared with what Belgian, French, and German miners raised, he would have seen that while the English miners raised 347 tons per man in 1883, the German miners raised 270 tons per man, the Belgians 171, and the French miners 189. In 1895 the figures showed that while the English miner produced 283 tons per man, the German miner produced only 250, the Belgian miner 175, and the French miner 205. Forty per cent. of lives which were lost in mines were preventible, and in fifty years five millions of people had been injured because the Home Office lacked courage to pass legislation in the face of monetary considerations. He looked upon miners as the bravest men in the army of industry. They had been clamouring for years for the protection of which this Bill gave them an instalment, and he hoped the Home Secretary would not budge a single inch, and that if any alteration was made in the Bill it would be in the direction of further protection. ["Hear, hear."]

, submitted that the Mines Regulation Act, under the administration of the Home Office, had done a great deal in safeguarding life and limb. A few figures of the experience of the Miners' Permanent Relief Society in South Wales proved that. In the five years between 1885 and 1890 the percentage of fatal accidents per 1,000 members was 3·93, and from 1888 to 1895, 3·63. Turning to the non-fatal accidents there had been a diminution. The percentage was heavy, but an improvement had been shown, and the improvement was due to the action of the Home Office. The Home Secretary was wise in withdrawing for the present Clauses 3 and 4. He hoped they were only withdrawn temporarily, because on their merits they were well worth consideration. In South Wales they had a sliding scale which had done a great deal of good. It was started in 1875, so they had had 21 years experience of its working, and employers and employed had agreed upon certain terms which had proved satisfactory. Wages had been revised on five different occasions—in 1880, 1882, 1887, 1890 and 1892, and it was on the revision of 1892 that the arrangement between employers and employed now existed. The agreement took into consideration the amount of wages and the other economical conditions which had been alluded to, and it had averted strikes during the whole of the 21 years. He appealed to the Home Secretary not to postpone sine die the consideration of economical questions which were well worthy his consideration and that of the House. The over weighting of the Bill with Clauses 3 and 4 might, as he had said, lead to the Bill being lost this Session, and he himself joined in the universally expressed desire that this Bill should be passed, if not in its entirety, that part which the Home Secretary thought he could pass. He hoped he would not postpone the other clauses indefinitely, but would give some kind of pledge that they would be considered at an early date. ["Hear, hear."]

said the primary object of the Bid was to secure additional safety for miners, and the withdrawn Clauses 3 and 4 were not exactly within the scope of that object. He joined heartily with the approval that had been expressed, on both sides, of the Measure. His own constituents in Durham would welcome anything that tended to increase the safety of the occupation in which they were engaged. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street seemed to be under the impression that Clause 8 was intended to give the Home Office power to decide which was the best and safest kind of explosive to be used. He did not think the clause was intended for any such purpose. It was intended to meet the pressure which had been brought to bear on the Home Office by inspectors as to the desirability of prohibiting the use of certain dangerous explosives. The Bill was evidently the outcome of much careful thought, consideration, and examination, and he heartily joined in thanking the Home Secretary for bringing in the most useful piece of legislation of the Session.

said the Bill had been drafted with great skill and judgment, and if it were carried into law it would undoubtedly be the means of saving hundreds of lives which would otherwise be sacrificed in the mines. He thought, however, that the Bill would be more effective for its purpose did it contain the clause of the Bill introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, providing that every jury appointed to inquire into a colliery accident should contain at least three persons who were or had been practical miners, and that no person connected with the mine in which the accident happened should be upon such jury. It was not the well-managed collieries that had anything to fear from legislation of this character. It was in the carelessly managed collieries—the collieries that were not efficiently handled—that the Bill was designed to make mining operations less dangerous to life and limb by careful supervision.

said he had been asked by the miners of his constituency to express their gratitude to the Home Secretary for his Bill, and to say that whilst they would have preferred a Measure of larger dimensions, such as the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, they were willing to accept this Bill for what it was worth. The Leader of the House suggested a few nights ago that whatever Bill was brought in by the Government would be described as the worst possible Bill imaginable. The friendly reception given to this Bill by the Opposition showed how unfounded was that statement. It proved that every Bill brought forward by the Government for the benefit of the community would receive the support of the Opposition.

joined in the congratulations to the Home Secretary for having introduced the Bill. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to omit one of the clauses, but as the rest of the Bill was so valuable and so likely to save many of the lives of a very worthy class of workers, there was consolation in the thought that the dropping of the contentious portion of the Bill would increase the prospects of its passing into law. He was sorry that more of the time of the Session had not been devoted to the passing of useful social legislation of this character, which tended to decrease the liability to accident of a hardworking and praiseworthy portion of the community which followed a dangerous calling, and he thought that one of the pieces of legislative work which the Home Secretary would be able to look back upon with satisfaction was the passing of this Bill. There had recently been some interesting researches as to the causes of explosions in mines, and if the Home Secretary could encourage such enquiries he would not only make his work more useful, but he would create one more cause of gratitude to his Department for its efforts in saving life among the workers of the country. The Bill was worthy of the hearty reception which it had received from all sides.

hoped that the House would now give the Bill a Second Reading, and expressed his gratification at the reception which it had been accorded on both sides of the House. It was by no means a new Bill, but was constructed on the lines of the well-considered Measure introduced by the right hon. Member for East Fife. As to the much more elaborate and complete Measure alluded to by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, if earlier in the Session the Government had introduced a Bill of 30 or 35 clauses, there would not have been the same chance of its passing as he hoped there was of this Bill of seven or eight clauses. The Debate had convinced him that he had come to a prudent decision in asking the House to leave out Clauses 3 and 4. He was sorry that the question with which Clause 3 dealt could not be settled now. It ought to be settled; and perhaps the fact that this clause had been proposed and that the uncertain state of the law had been made clear might possibly bring those concerned on both sides of the question to some agreement on this most difficult point. As to Clause 4, he had never intended to say that it was in any respect controversial. It had been agreed to by masters and men; but it was not directly concerned with the saving of life, and it was, therefore, more logical that it should be withdrawn from the Bill. He hoped that the Amendments which he would be able to propose in Grand Committee on the various points which had been mentioned would meet with general acceptance. ["Hear, hear!"]

appealed to the Home Secretary to consider the terms which had been put forward on behalf of the workmen, It was very desirable that those overtures should be fairly considered. The colliery proprietors had great power and would be strongly represented on the Grand Committee, and he hoped that they would seriously take to heart the recommendation and advice given to them, so that this Bill, which would be to the advantage of owners and miners alike, should become an Act of Parliament. Many of the colliery proprietors sat on the Ministerial side of the House, and they should remember that the Government would get great credit for passing the Bill. He hoped they would, as far as possible, shorten discussion in Committee. As representing a labour constituency, he could with justice thank Her Majesty's Government for having brought the Bill forward.

said that such discussions as that which had taken place would greatly facilitate progress in Grand Committee and on Report. Clause 1 referred solely to the question of safety, and he thought the Home Secretary should not make the special rules subject to arbitration. They should be laid before Parliament in the ordinary course. They were quite different rules from those in the Coal Mines Regulations Act. Judging from the feeling in Scotland, he thought the Home Secretary had exercised a wise discretion in dropping Clause 3. Clause 4, however, might be allowed to stand. That clause simply related to the checkweigher, and it was not likely it would be opposed by either the representatives of the masters or the men, seeing that all it provided was that the men should be allowed to appoint a substitute in the absence of the checkweigher, and that the checkweigher should have some shelter in bad weather. There was certainly nothing in the clause which was in the slightest degree contentious. As to Clause 8, he thought it was very reasonable that the Home Secretary should have the power to prevent, by regulation, any particular explosive being used in a mine.

said he welcomed this Bill as he would welcome any Measure which would tend to safeguard the interests of those engaged in a laborious industry, He, however, rose particularly to express his regret at the decision to drop Clause 3. He had received from mineowners in his division expressions of the very strongest disapproval of the decision of the Home Secretary, and he was afraid his correspondents would not be satisfied with the explanation the right hon. Gentleman had given. They felt their interests had been altogether neglected. It seemed to him that the clause was amply safeguarded against any possible abuse. It was a purely enabling clause, and could not be put into force unless both employers and employed agreed it was right and proper it should be used. He, therefore, thought the mineowners had every reason to feel that their interests had been neglected by the dropping of the clause. Its retention might have added somewhat to the contentiousness of the Bill, but it could not have prevented the Bill from becoming law this Session.

congratulated the Home Secretary upon the introduction of the Measure, and the House upon the time which had been afforded for the very instructive Debate which had taken place. He had observed with great satisfaction that whereas in regard to another Measure affecting the interests of the miners there had been a difference of opinion on the part of the miners' representatives, hon. Gentlemen had to night been almost unanimous in expressing a willingness to accept this Measure. On the whole, a spirit of conciliation had been manifested on both sides which augured well for the future. He suggested the propriety of dealing with the Mining Regulation Bill, to which the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred. It contained some valuable and reasonable provisions, and he hoped that the facilities which the Government were being allowed for the passing of the present Bill would encourage them to deal at a fitting time with the larger though not more important Measure.

as a member of the Royal Commission whose recommendations formed part of the basis of the Bill, desired to express his strong approval of the Measure. As one of the largest colliery owners in the kingdom, he asserted that the colliery owners themselves did not require further legislation to cause them to be more careful in promoting the safety of their mines. The legislation in reference to coal mines had been so remarkable and so well fulfilled in the last thirty years that he questioned whether there was a single industry in the country where safety was more thoroughly watched and cared for. He challenged the representative of any other industry to point to a case where, as in the case of coal mining, the workmen themselves were called in to aid the owners and managers to promote safety. It was a common practice among colliery owners to ask the miners to aid them in watching over the safety of the men by sending round miners themselves to inspect the mines, and their recommendations were always very carefully noted and observed. He suggested that the justice or otherwise of Clause 3 should be left to the consideration of the Committee, and if, as he believed, it only sought to put into the law what had been the accepted custom, it might reasonably be retained in the Bill. It was not generally known that hundreds of pounds had to be spent in machinery to move the dirt that was brought out of the mine with the coal. He hoped the clause would be further considered. Bill read the Second time.

said he was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen) had been able to make some further concessions with regard to the system of classification. This system consisted of the payment of precisely the same work at different rates, and was one which was quite contrary to the practice in private yards. It was an anomaly which had given occasion, for many years past, to great dissatisfaction and agitation, and although the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to grapple with it he had not approached to that full abolition of classification which his predecessors were pledged to, and which he believed the right hon. Gentleman himself recognised should be carried out. He would ask him if he could give them any idea as to whether he would abolish this great anomaly. The adjustment that was sought might be very easily arrived at. It was simply a question of whether, after taking into consideration such concessions as these employés got, one standard rate of wages could not be set up in each trade, such to be on the basis of the rates of pay prevailing in the private shipbuilding yards of the country where Government contracts were accepted. He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question as to why it was that certain petitions, and especially one which dealt with the wages of the lowest paid class of workmen in the Government service, had not received any reply. He referred to the labourers. The wages these men received were totally inadequate, having regard to the expenses of living, which were considerable. In a statement issued by the Government in 1894, it was said that where the rental conditions were different to those prevailing ordinarily, those conditions would be taken into consideration by increasing the wages to meet the rent payable. In accordance with that promise, a concession was made to Woolwich and Deptford. As he pointed out then, and as he pointed out now, owing to the extraordinary system of land tenure which prevailed at Devonport, the rents were much higher than in any other naval port. In substantiation of that statement, he would refer to the Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Plymouth. This gentleman showed that out of a population of 86,000 people some 50,000 occupied tenements. He stated that upwards of half the population lived in tenements of from one to three or four rooms, a proportion so abnormally high as to cause special inquiry to be made by the Registrar General at the last census. At the last census it was found that the number of persons occupying tenements of less than five rooms was as follows:—In one room there resided 11,301 persons; in two rooms, 19,835; in three rooms, 12,113; and in four rooms, 7,693. In all there were 50,942 persons, out of a population of 86,000, occupying tenements. The rent of the tenements, although the accommodation was most inadequate, was exceptionally high, and he thought he was justified in pressing that the Government should make some inquiry as to the rental conditions which prevailed in Devonport. From the last Census Returns, the Medical Officer of Health stated that there was much more overcrowding in Devonport than in London. In the whole of England and Wales there were 47 per 1,000 of the population who lived in one room; in London 184 per 1,000; while in Plymouth, including Devonport, no less than 244 per 1,000 occupied one room, this being the only large town in England with a higher rate than London, thus showing that the rental conditions of Devonport were worse than those of the Metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty was himself aware that most exceptional rental conditions prevailed in Devonport, because he had admitted to the House that the Government had had a great deal of trouble with the lord of the manor in purchasing their own property. In face of these facts, and in face of the statements made by the responsible medical officer of health, he asked the Admiralty, were they any longer justified in contending that they had satisfied the necessities of the case by saying that the wages paid were the same as those paid in other places? He would remind the First Lord of the Admiralty that his predecessors in office pledged themselves to the statement that, where it could be proved that the rental conditions justified differential treatment so far as the wages of the labourers were concerned, they should be raised. He did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to take any statement he made without inquiring into its accuracy, but, in face of the abundant evidence which existed on the subject, he did think the time had arrived when the Admiralty Board should be pressed to make some inquiry. He should be perfectly satisfied if the Admiralty would consent to an investigation or inquiry with a view to ascertaining whether the labourers of the Devonport dockyard were not entitled to some additional wage in consideration of the fact that their rents were very much higher than those paid in any other place. Owing to the excessive rents which had to be paid, and the miserable hovels in which these men had to live, it was only right that they should be put on some basis which would release them from the present onerous conditions.

remarked that he had the pleasurable duty to perform of thanking the First Lord of the Admiralty, on behalf of the employes of the Portsmouth dockyard, for the great consideration he had already shown to their petitions, and the large concessions which they had had made to them during the present year. He trusted the shipwrights and joiners would obtain the concessions they asked for. Minor classes of employers had also been overlooked. He could send the First Lord of the Admiralty some communications with regard to these. With one exception, there had been no change in the rate of wages for over 25 years. These minor classes had been overlooked probably because they were small in number, and not so important as the larger classes of workmen to whom attention had been given. He hoped the First Lord would concede the righteous claims of these men.

joined with his hon. Friend who had just spoken in expressing the great satisfaction felt in all the trades at the concessions the First Lord of the Admiralty had made as to the hired men. But he himself could not understand why a clean sweep was not made of the system of classification. That would only cost a few hundred pounds. The system created great dissatisfaction among the employés in the dockyards. Fitters needed classification, and among them it meant that men engaged on a totally different kind of work received a totally different rate of wages. But among shipwrights and joiners were men who did the same work on the same job, doing the same amount of work in the same time, and yet receiving different rates of wages, which caused heartburning and disgust in the minds of the men. If the wages of all classes were raised up to the present maximum it would cost exceedingly little. There was another real grievance which should be looked into. Men who went on the establishment from being hired men received certain advantages, the principal of which was that after a certain number of years they were entitled to a pension on retirement. In consideration of these advantages, they received less pay on the establishment than as hired men. The pension was really in the nature of deferred pay. The men might be considered to contribute a certain amount out of wages towards the pension fund. What the men complained of was this. If a man were to retire at a particular time he would get a pension, but if he were to die at that time his widow or other representative would receive nothing, and what was asked in such a case was that some actuarial calculation should be made of the amount which the man had contributed by the deductions in his pay, and that that sum should be handed over to his representative. The late Government had announced that they would pay their employés in the dockyards the trades union rate of wages current in the district. He knew that had been done substantially in most cases, but most decidedly it had not been done in regard to the joiners in Devonport dockyard, where there was a difference, amounting to about 6s. a week, between the wages of the joiners in the dockyard and the wages of the joiners employed outside. Another matter to which he would direct the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty was that there was a considerable number of smaller trades in the dockyards who had received no answer— probably owing to an oversight—to the petition they had sent to the Admiralty last year.

thanked hon. Gentlemen opposite, on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, for their recognition of the spirit of concession with which the Board had considered petitions from dockyard workers. But he would express the hope that Gentlemen representing dockyard towns would not make every concession granted by the Board of Admiralty a reason for demanding still further concessions. He did not think it would be wise in the interest of their own consitituencies, and he was quite certain that it would not be an encouragement to any Board of Admiralty, to grant any such concessions in the future. The last hon. Member who spoke complained that a large number of petitions had been left unanswered by the Board of Admiralty. The men who made that complaint were labouring under some delusion. They probably considered that if their request was not complied with they had received no answer to their petition. As a matter of fact the Board of Admiralty had issued instructions for giving an answer to every request made to them during the years 1894 and 1895. As to the permission to count half the hired time towards pension, that was a fixed rule in which all would participate; but it marked the limit to which the Admiralty felt that they could go. As to the question of classification, he would explain what the position was. In certain trades classification was introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Ormskirk Division when he was Secretary to the Admiralty. Classification had not before existed, and was not in accordance with the general practice of the trades, so the late Board of Admiralty decided to abolish it; and, in order to arrive at a fair standard rate for the future, they took the mean between the highest and the lowest rates, and they provided that no man who was receiving a higher rate than this new standard should suffer by the abolition. But those higher rates were retained as special to the men who enjoyed them, and were merely permitted because the Admiralty were un willing to deprive men of existing privileges. Further, every man on the establishment at the time was given a rate 6d. above that paid to any new man entering. The last provision gave some ground of complaint to the workmen, on the ground that the promised abolition of classification had not been wholly carried out; so the present Board of Admiralty had done away with the distinction and had raised the new men to the same rate as that which was paid to the men of the establishment. So there was now but one standard for all, except for the men whose higher rates were personal to themselves. The only way to arrive at that absolute equality which the hon. Member for Devonport asked for was to reduce the men who received exceptional rates to the standard rates. He thought that what they were asked to do for the shipwrights would cost a large sum, and not the few pounds suggested. So much for the question of classification. The hon. Member for Devonport made a special appeal for his constituents on the ground of the higher rental charged, but the information before the Admiralty did not bear that out. Any new facts which should be laid before them would receive careful attention. As to the remarks about the wages paid to their workmen, he thought they were better off than the workmen in other trades throughout the country, and the Government would not be justified in paying higher wages.