I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many names of candidates for the next examination for Army Medical Staff in August have been received; and, what are the completed ages of these candidates?

Thirty-one candidates have applied, their completed ages varying from 22 to 27 years, with an average of 24 years and eight months.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is a rule in the Metropolitan Police Force that any officer charged with an offence against the rules of the service is entitled to meet his accuser face to face and to question the said accuser in the presence of a superior officer; and, whether this rule is invariably adhered to?

The general rule is as stated in the Question, but the hon. Member will admit that complaints against a constable cannot be altogether ignored in cases where the complainant does not attend in person. In all cases, however, if after careful inquiry the matter appears to be in doubt, the complainant is referred to a magistrate.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statement, at a public meeting, of Mr. James Mahaffy, J.P., Belturbet, to the effect that, owing to the bungling of the Lough Erne Drainage Board, the River Erne from Belturbet to Belleek has not been made navigable as was originally intended; whether, in view of the fact that, if a deepening of the river at the two or three places where rapids first were made, traffic by steamer both for goods and tourists could be carried on with profit, especially in the case of tourists during the summer season, he will inquire for and lay before this House an estimate of the cost it would entail to afford passage to steamers of 100 tons from Belleek to Belturbet; and, if the cost is not found to be large, will the Treasury enable the Lough Erne Drainage Board to undertake the work?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. W. HANBURY), who is unavoidably absent from the House, has asked me to answer this Question for him. He is informed that the Erne was made navigable from Belleek to Belturbet as part of the drainage scheme lately carried out, and to the depth proposed in the plans. Some years have elapsed since the cuts were made, and the Board of Works report that an investigation would be necessary to ascertain their present condition, but, judging from the plans, the Board believe that a steamer of the cargo capacity mentioned could ply between the places named. In the absence of evidence that any further expenditure on the navigation is required, the question of a further grant (in addition to the £15,000 voted between 1882 and 1885) does not arise.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of a change of residence of the medical officer of the Arvagh, county Cavan, dispensary district, patients living in the electoral division of Drumcarban have to go a distance of eight miles for medical advice and medicine, in many cases at a serious risk to life; and whether, seeing that this part of this division is contiguous to the dispensary district of Bellanagh, would it be possible to so divide the townlands of the electoral division as to place those lying beside Bellanagh on the list of townlands for the attention of the medical officer of that district, instead of, as at present, compelling the sick poor in them to travel eight and ten miles to get relief in the Arvagh dispensarv?

It is the fact that the Medical Officer of the Arvagh District changed his residence some years ago to a place about three-quarters of a mile distant from his former abode; but his present residence is the one occupied by his predecessor, and is situated within the district. The medical officer's residence is about eight miles from the remotest townland in the Drumcarban electoral division, though this, I am informed, is not an unusual distance, and if found inconvenient for the sick poor the Local Government Board are prepared to consent to the establishment of a depot at the Drumcarban end of the district if the Guardians should so desire. The Board are debarred by statute from subdividing an electoral division as suggested in the Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the ash lance staves issued to Dragoon Guards and Dragoon regiments have been reported by Boards of Officers and Officers Commanding to be brittle, unreliable, and unfit for active service; and what steps are being taken to replace them with bamboos?

It is recognised that the ash lance staves are not satisfactory, but great difficulty is found in procuring sufficient bamboo staves which fulfil all the conditions required in the specification. It is hoped to provide a store of bamboo lances for use on active service, retaining the ash slaves for use during peace.

What is the country of origin of ash staves? Are they made in Germany?

dissented by shaking his head.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, where the Eagle of the 45th French Infantry of the Line, captured by Sergeant Ewart, Scots Greys, at Waterloo, is now hung or stored?

This trophy is in the chapel of Chelsea Hospital.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what number of workmen are employed on the Defence Works at Leenan Head, county Donegal, now in course of construction; what is the rate of wages offered by the contractors, and is it equal to the usual wages paid by local employers; whether complaints have been made by local labourers, and a list of employers with the wages paid by them has been received from the labourers by the Secretary of State for War, with a request that, according to the terms of the contract he would insist on the contractors paying fair wages; and, whether he intends to take any action in the matter?

The number of men employed on the works at Leenan Head is stated to be 12. Inquiries have been made as to the wages paid locally and by the contractor, and the latter appear to be the current rate; but complaints have been received and a further investigation has been ordered.

Out of what Vote is provision made for these works?

I can-not say at the moment.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether there is any intention to deal by legislation with the Report of the Select Committee on Feus and Leases (Scotland), 1894–5?

I am unable to give the hon. Member any undertaking as to legislation on the subject referred to in this question, but the matter will receive the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.

Is the matter under consideration?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that Mr. J. T. Gibbings, J. P., and Mr. S. E. Shirley, J. P., acted together in hearing cases at Petty Sessions at Carrickmacross on 23rd July; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Gibbings is a rent collector for Mr. Shirley; (3) whether it is in accordance with the law for a landlord and rent collector to take part at same Petty Sessions as magistrates; and (4) whether be will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, that it may not occur again?

The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. There is no provision at law prohibiting principal and agent from acting together as magistrates, but there is a rule, founded on grounds of policy, that they should not so act together, though the rule may, I understand, under special circumstances he subject to modification. There is no reason for questioning the bonâ fides of the magistrates in acting together in the present instance, but I see no objection to refer the matter to the Lord Chancellor with a view to his considering whether there were any circumstances justifying a departure from the rule on this occasion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why Officers were ordered to provide themselves with new swords some months since, and have now to obtain a serge jacket of novel pattern, and by such changes of dress and accoutrements have been put to considerable expense?

Officers were not required to provide new swords, but new sword-hilts, the change being made with the object of increasing efficiency. Officers are given time to wear out their present jackets before being required to possess themselves of the new and less expensive pattern.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can now state what decision he has come to relative to the prosecution of Dennis Dooling, of Walshtownbog, Midleton, County Cork, for perjury?

I have carefully examined the report of what took place at Presentment Sessions, and am of opinion that however suspicious the transaction may have been, there is no evidence available to sustain a prosecution against Dooling for perjury or fraud.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board have yet issued any Order fixing the rating qualification of members of dispensary committees pursuant to the recent Act; and, if not, when such an Order will be issued?

The Order in question is in course of preparation and will be issued shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large number of persons, styled "personal clerks" or "hired writers," not on the permanent establishment of the Civil Service, but appointed personally by Heads of Departments without examination, and whose salaries are paid out of an annual lump sum allowance placed at the disposal of such Heads, have been for several years past employed on purely clerical duties in various Government Departments, and on work which would appear to be of a strictly permanent character; whether, in relation to such employment, he has considered Paragraph 24 of the Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889, in which the system under which these men are employed is condemned: whether such employment is in pursuance of the above-named Treasury Minute (Paragraph 26), adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments; whether, before authorising the employment of personal clerks or hired writers in the manner above stated, he has satisfied himself that the work to be performed by them is of such a nature that it cannot fitly be provided for in the manner indicated in the said Minute; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with the view of ascertaining to what extent the provisions referred to in the said Minute have been carried out, and of limiting the employment of such personal clerks and hired writers to strictly temporary work which cannot be provided for in the manner indicated in the said Minute?

My right hon. Friend asks me to say that he does not know if the Question is intended to include clerks in the offices of Solicitors to Public Departments. As to them he has nothing to add to his answer to the hon. Member on 12th May last. As regards the hon. Member's other Questions, my right hon. Friend is not aware that persons are temporarily employed and paid as the hon. Member describes on work of a strictly permanent character. He does not consider that the Treasury Minute of 10th August 1889, forbids the employment of temporary personal clerks on work which is of a temporary character, or which is subject to such variations of amount as not to permit of a fixed permanent staff. Before sanctioning the employment of such persons, the Treasury require in each case to be satisfied that the work is such as has been described, so no further inquiry seems necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the danger to the public caused by the not infrequent escapes from control and rushes through the public thoroughfares of London of bullocks for slaughter, and in particular to such endangering of the public as took place in Harleyford Road on 3rd August, by a bull escaping from a slaughter-house and rushing through the streets; and whether he would, in consequence of these dangers to the public and for other sanitary reasons, consider the advisability of extending to local authorities further facilities for the erection of public abattoirs?

The attention of the President has not been previously called to cases in which danger was occasioned to the public by the escape of bullocks for slaughter, and he has no information as to what occurred in the Harleyford Road on the day referred to. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the provision made for the slaughter of cattle at the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and also of the fact that the driving of cattle in London between the hours of 10 in the morning and 7 in the evening is prohibited, except with the permission of the Commissioner of Police. The extension to local authorities in London of further facilities for the erection of public abattoirs would require legislation, and no promise can be given in the matter.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner—(1) whether the Report of Mr. Rogers Field on the Horsham site for Christ's Hospital was treated as a private and confidential communication by the Almoners for above nine months; and (2) whether it had had due consideration by the Charity Commissioners before they authorised £20,000 to be expended on draining, roads, levelling, and planting?

The Charity Commissioners have no information upon the point raised in the first paragraph of this Question. It relates to a matter of current administration in connection with the removal of the Hospital; and, as I stated in answer to a Question on July 28, the Commissioners are not charged with the duty of interfering in such matters. Mr. Rogers Field's Report was duly considered by the Commissioners before their sanction was given to the expenditure mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question. That Report, while condemning the then existing wells on the site, suggested a deeper boring. Some months before the Commissioners sanctioned the outlay referred to in the Question that boring had been sufficiently advanced to prove that a water suppty abundantly sufficient both in quantity and quality could be secured on the estate.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the duty of preparing works upon African flora was intrusted to Mr. Dyer, of Kew Gardens, nearly 20 years ago; whether he is aware that this gentleman has published practically nothing on the subject; and whether he will urge Mr. Dyer either to complete the work or to abandon it, so as no longer to discourage private enterprise in the same field?

The third volume of the "Flora of Tropical Africa" was published in 1877. In 1891 the Treasury authorised the completion of the work, in four more volumes, under Mr. Dyer, on the understanding that one volume would be published every two years. No further volume has yet been issued, although portions of one are in type. Mr. Dyer has been urged to complete the work as rapidly as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the reply of the Postmaster General to the deputation of the Irish Chambers of Commerce relative to the new mail service between England and Ireland is conclusive; and whether, in view of the great dissatisfaction caused in Ireland by that reply, the Post Office authorities will reconsider the question with a view to meeting the wishes of the Irish public?

The Postmaster General's reply to the deputation from the Irish Chambers of Commerce relative to the new mail service between England and Ireland was made after the fullest consideration, and, while regretting that the acceleration proposed does not fully meet the wishes of the public in Ireland, he sees no possibility of adopting a different time table for the night mail from that which has been announced.

asked when the resolution relating to the new mail service contract would be laid before Parliament?

I am a very indirect representative of the Postmaster General, and I fear I cannot give an answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the English mails have been late in their delivery at Tralee three times during the past week and ten times during the month of July; and whether, in view of the great and continual inconvenience cause to the people of Tralee and its neighbourhood by these constant delays in the delivery of the English mails, the Post Office authorities will invite the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to tender for an accelerated mail service to Tralee, permission being given them to stop the up and down mail trains at Mallow?

The Postmaster General is aware that there has been great irregularity of late in the delivery of the English mails at Tralee, as indicated in the Question of the hon. Member. Inquiry shall be made as to the possibility of effecting some improvement of the service to Tralee by way of Mallow, but the establishment of a new train specially for the mails would, it is feared, involve greater additional expense than could properly be incurred.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if complaints have been made to the Post Office authorities regarding the unsatisfactory arrangements in existence since the 1st of June last for the delivery of the morning mails at Portstewart, county Antrim; in view of the fact that the 6.30 a.m. mail train from Belfast, on the Northern Counties Railway, carries letters from Scotland and the various districts of Ireland to all the stations between Belfast and Derry, and is timed to reach Portstewart Station at 8.45 a.m., will he explain why the Portstewart letters and parcels are not delivered till after 12 o'clock noon; Does the railway company transfer the Portstewart mail bags from the mail train at Coleraine, and leave those mail bags to be conveyed to the Portstewart Station later in the day by a train which is not a mail train; is there any clause or condition in the contract with the Northern Counties Railway for the carriage of mails which enables that company to transfer mail bags from the principal mail train of the day, and leave those mail bags at intervening stations to be taken to their destination as the company may deem fit; is it legal to transfer mails in this way; and, considering the great inconvenience which the large number of summer visitors to Portstewart and the residents there suffer, will the Postmaster General remedy this grievance without delay?

The Postmaster General has received complaints of the late delivery of the morning mails at Portstewart since the 1st June. Portstewart is on a branch line, and the branch train in immediate connection with the 6.30 a.m. train from Belfast having ceased to call at Portstewart, a subsequent train was employed and the arrival of the mails at Portstewart Station was postponed from 8.45 to 9.5 a.m. There was some further delay after arrival in sending the mails from the station to the Post Office in consequence of there being no tram car available until 9.30 a.m., and the delivery of the letters to the public was for a time not completed until about 12 noon. The transfer of the mails from the main line to the branch line takes place at Coleraine. The train on the branch line is not under the control of the Post Office, and the railway company have broken neither their contract nor the law in withdrawing the stop of the earlier train at Portstewart. Arrangements have been made for getting rid of the further delay after the arrival at Portstewart Station, and the delivery now commences at 9.45 a.m. and is completed by 11.20 a.m. or only 20 minutes later than formerly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can arrange that the proposed Irish mail time table shall not be definitely settled until next Session: and, whether be is aware that recent investigations have shown that there is no practical difficulty in acceding to request of the recent deputation to the Postmaster General?

It would be impossible to make arrangements by the 1st April next for extending to the Irish provinces the advantages of the acceleration to commence on that date if the time table of the service between London and Dublin were not settled until next Session. The Postmaster General is not aware of any investigations which have shown that the request of the recent deputation could be acceded to without practical difficulty.

asked whether another deputation from the Irish Chambers of Commerce would be received, so that their views might be made known?

If the hon. Member will apply to the Postmaster General, I think he will find him ready to meet his wishes.

What value are we going to receive for our £ 104,000 a year?

I am not intrusted with any information upon that point. (Laughter.)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, regarding the acceleration of the Irish mail service, an agreement was discussed on the 27th May 1895, promising the arrangement asked for by the recent deputation to the Postmaster General?

No, Sir. The Postmaster General is aware of no such discussion. On the 27th May 1895, a Question was put in this House respecting the agreement then just concluded with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, but no question was raised or promise given that the times desired by the recent deputation would be adopted. Indeed, so long previously as the 16th November 1894, it had been explained by the Postmaster General, at an interview with the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Cork and Belfast that, while he hoped to arrange for an acceleration of half an hour between Euston and Holyhead so far as the night mail was concerned, this would not mean more than five minutes' gain in the time of arrival in the morning at Holyhead, as it would be impossible to anticipate the present hours of departure of the night mails from Crewe and Chester without a dislocation of the mail service of the whole country. That position has never been departed from.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the result of his inquiries as to the purchase of the Colonna Raphael?

I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the compensation money for the Kilbride Rifle Range, which was taken from the owner compulsorily upon the 18th March, 1895, has yet been paid; if not, when will it be paid; whether, as The owner has lost the use and rents of the lands for 17 months, he will receive interest upon the compensation money until same is paid; and will he explain why the costs of the abortive arbitration and the costs of the legal proceedings subsequently, which the Courts awarded the owner, have not bean paid him?

An offer is about to be made to the owner of the ground, with an allowance both for interest and costs, and it is hoped that the matter may be settled immediately.

asked whether the matter would be settled before the end of the Session?

I cannot say. These things sometimes require a few days' consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he is aware that the Council of the Government in Malta have passed an Ordinance by which it is enacted that "marriages celebrated in Malta by all those who profess the Catholic religion, whether both the contracting parties be Catholic, or whether one of them be a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are not, and shall not be, valid if they are not celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent;" (2) whether such Ordinance was introduced with the concurrence of the Government, and was supported by the official members of the Council; and (3) whether, inasmuch as the Ordinance is opposed to the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which the question was referred by the Home Government, Her Majesty will be advised to withhold Her sanction from the Ordinance?

The answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative, and the answer to both branches of the second question is in the negative. The answer to the third question is that the matter is under the consideration of the Government.

gave notice that he should call attention to the subject either on the Colonial Vote or on the Appropriation Bill.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, for the sake of enabling the tax payers to know the actual total of the amount raised in the way of Imperial taxation, he will, by means of a statement, appended to the final balance-sheet of the Budget of next Session, or otherwise, show the amounts received from taxation but not actually paid into the Treasury, and the corresponding grants in aid paid to local authorities?

The hon. Member will find the information he desires in the Return of Public Income and Expenditure annually moved for by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton. The Return for 1895–6 is complete, and will be issued immediately.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, can he explain upon what principle the Postmaster General is considering the propriety of giving gratuities to certain persons who assisted in extinguishing the recent fire in a mail van on the Great Northern Counties Railway, Ireland, seeing that the Post Office is in no way responsible for the fire by which the mail van was consumed; how many claims have been lodged with the Company or the Post Office, or both, for compensation in this case, and what is the aggregate sum claimed up to the present time; and, has the Post Office, and not the railway company, paid all or any of those claims; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds?

Should the Postmaster General decide to give some gratuity to the persons who assisted in extinguishing the fire in the mail van on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member, he will do so on the principle that it is desirable to encourage, efforts to save the mails I when in danger or to recover them if lost. About 50 claims have been lodged with the Postmaster General, and the aggregate amount may be roughly estimated at about £30. My right hon. Friend is not aware whether any separate demands for compensation have been made upon the railway company. The payments have been made by the Postmaster General in pursuance of the undertaking into which he has entered with the public to pay, as an act of grace, compensation for parcels and registered letters.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication from the railway managers in respect to the promised improvements for the more humane transit of live stock by rail?

No, Sir, not yet.

asked for information as to the steps that were being taken by the railway companies.

I cannot expect the railway companies to give me information as to every stage of their proceedings.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest on a child held at Poplar on Monday last, when Dr. Cooper Harrison, the medical witness, attributed the existing prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhœa among children in the East End of London to the scanty supply of water, and also stated that in his own house the water was not turned on more than one hour a day, and that there was a filthy deposit in the water supplied; and whether, in these; circumstances, he will make further representations to the East London Water Company of the urgent necessity for improving both the quantity and the quality of the water which they are supplying to their customers?

The President has seen the report which has appeared in the newspapers of the inquest, and is aware of the statements of Dr. Harrison which are referred to in the Question. As regards the supply of water to Dr. Harrison's house, the President is informed by the East London Company that the supply of water was from 7 to 9 in the morning, and from 1 to 3 in the afternoon. This supply was for four hours, and he is unable to give any explanation of the supply being for less than six hours. With regard to the quality of the water, the company have forwarded samples of water which were yesterday drawn from the communication pipe supplying Dr. Harrison's house, and, so far as these samples are concerned, there is no evidence of any turbidity or other deposit in the water supplied, and the Local Government Board are not aware of any general complaint as to the quality of the water. As regards the prevalence of fatal cases of diarrhœa among young children in the East End of London, the President understands that the usual autumnal increase of diarrhœa has been somewhat exceptional this year, both in London and in many other towns. There is generally an exceptional increase when excess of temperature is combined with deficient rainfall, but there is no evidence to show that there is any increase in deaths from this cause in East London in consequence of the diminished supply of water in the district. Indeed, the published Returns for the last few weeks show that in certain divisions of London, and other towns where there has been no deficiency in the water supply, the increase in the number of deaths from diarrhœa has been greater than in the East district of the Metropolis The President has been in constant communication with the East London Water Company, and he has no reason to doubt that they are, fully realising the necessity of giving as large a quantity of water as the circumstances will admit.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the Lord Chancellor will take steps to remedy the, great inconvenience caused by the fact that the Registrar of the Malton County Court has left the district, and has appointed a deputy who is not resident therein?

The Lord Chancellor is in communication with the County Court Judge and the Registrar respecting the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it was intended to exclude the Commission on Old-Age Pensions by the terms of reference to it from considering any scheme for pensions which are not directly contributed to by the people who are to enjoy them; and, whether he will consider the desirability of so enlarging the terms of reference as to empower the Commissioners, if they so desire, to take into consideration the proposals of Mr. Charles Booth and other schemes which demand only indirect contribution on the part of the pensioners?

It appears to us that the reference to the Commission is already wide enough to include the whole scope of the Inquiry which ought to be made. If, however, the Commissioners appeal to us and say that they are restricted by the reference, the question of reconsidering the reference will be carefully dealt with.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Committee, next Session, to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Acts with reference to the British Army quartered in India?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention had been called to the views repeatedly expressed by the Army Sanitary Commission, that the system of the Contagious Diseases Acts in India had proved a failure, and that its reinstitution could not consequently be advocated on sanitary grounds; and whether, considering these views and the strong opposition which existed to such measures on moral grounds, the Government would direct the attention of the Indian authorities to the memoranda on the subject by the Army Sanitary Commission, and to the remedial measures suggested by them?

In answer to the Question on the Paper, and that of the hon. Gentleman opposite, I have to say that there is no doubt as to the gravity of the present state of things. We understand that there is a dispute whether, and how far, this state of things is due to recent legislation. The Government will consider the propriety of an Inquiry, either by Committee or otherwise, to decide the controversy as to the facts.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if the attention of the Government has been directed to the suggestion made on Friday last by the late Prime Minister, the Earl of Rosebery, thatan Inquiry should be instituted, short, practical, and exhaustive, into the causes of the decline of British trade and the alarming increase of that of our foreign rivals, more particularly in the decline in the exports of British produce between 1872 and 1894 of £2 9s. 9d. per head of the population, and in the increase between 1883 and 1893 of 30 per cent. in the importation of German manufactured goods, and of £13,000,000 in the imports of foreign manufactured articles; and, if Her Majesty's Government will take steps in that direction, notwithstanding the industrial prosperity temporarily succeeding the recent years of acute depression?

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the annual average exports from Great Britain from 1885–89 were £226,000,000, whereas from 1890–91 they were £234,000,000; and, whether he is also aware that the average exports from Germany during the first period—

Order, order! It is quite out of order for an hon. Member to read out a number of extracts from Blue-books and ask a Minister whether he is aware of the facts contained in them

They are all wrong, Sir. [Laughter.]

The question of the amount of British as compared with foreign trade is being carefully watched by the Board Trade, who are engaged in collecting materials on the subject for publication. The colonial aspect of the question is being carefully examined into at the same time by the Colonial Office. Until we have the results of these investigations before us it would be premature to decide whether further inquiry is necessary or not.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to a letter of Lord Rosebery's in this morning's papers, in which the writer says that his speech

"was intended to arouse the attention of our commercial classes to the grave inroads which are being made on our commerce by Foreign Powers. What is really wanted is a small Commission of Inquiry."

["Order, order!"] Well, it is Lord Rosebery's.

I should say that an inquiry could hardly be, in Lord Rosebery's words, at the same time short, practical, and exhaustive. If it were short it could hardly be exhaustive, and if exhaustive it could hardly be short. [Laughter.]

With reference to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to put down as the second Order of the day, I find on examination that the matter is of great importance to the Imperial Finance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not bring it on later than 11 o'clock.

I should be glad to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will do his best to help the Government to get through as many Votes as possible before that hour.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to take the Colonial Vote to-night or to-morrow?

I think there are other Votes which precede the Colonial Vote. I hope there will be time to discuss all the Votes.

My question was whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to take the Colonial Vote to-night or to-morrow?

I do not propose to take any Votes to-morrow. With regard to to-morrow the first Order of the day will of course be the West Highland Railway Guarantee Bill, and after that I propose to put down Measures which I hope will be regarded as uncontroversial.

I think only one night has been given to the Scotch Votes. I should be glad to know when the remainder will be taken.

I hope we may get through the very few remaining Scotch Votes to-night.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any foundation for the rumour that the Military Lands Bill is to be withdrawn?

I have very little hope that that Bill can be taken in the course of the present Session.

May I ask whether the London University Commission Bill will be proceeded with to-night or at all?

Certainly not to-night; and as rumour has reached me of opposition to the Bill, I do not myself entertain any very lively hope that it can be proceeded with.

asked whether the Motion to nominate the South African Committee would be taken to-night?

said it would not be taken tonight or to-morrow.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has taken note of the fact that there is only one Irish Member nominated on this Committee, and whether the nearest proportion to which the Irish Party are entitled is two? I would also ask whether one Member has been deducted from the Opposition or from the Government?

From the Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Whips of the Irish Party have consented to this arrangement?

rose to ask a further Question, when

This is raising a Debate on a subject which can be discussed when the names of the Committee are submitted to the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether there should not be an original Motion put from the Chair that the Committee should consist of 15 Members, so as to give hon. Members an opportunity of moving an Amendment with a view to increasing the number?

I believe precedent has been strictly followed. When the Committee about to be nominated does not exceed 15 Members, it is not usual to specify the number.

May I ask whether it would be in order to move at the commencement, when the Motion came on, that this Committee do consist of 17 Members?

Notice must be given of any Amendment of that kind.

With notice it can be done?

With notice the hon. Member can propose to add other Members, if the House increases the number of the Committee.

I suppose the Government would have no objection, in view of the importance of this Committee, to postpone the consideration of it until Monday?

I do not propose to take it tonight if it is seriously opposed.

May I ask you, Sir, whether it will not be open to any hon. Member to propose the addition of any names to the Committee?

Notice must be given of such a Motion, as I have said.

moved to reduce the Vote by £50, explaining that his real desire was to see it increased by many thousands. His contention was that the Government was bound to lead the way as a model employer of labour. On the 8th of August 1890, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, then Leader of the House, said:

"In common with all who are responsible for the Government of the country he regarded it as a matter of the highest importance that the men who are employed in Her Majesty's dockyards and arsenals should he well paid and con-tented. He was sure that the House of Commons would not desire to underpay any servants of the Crown."

In the discussion on Mr. Buxton's Motion in 1891, Mr. Plunket announced

"that the Government would insert a provision in Government contracts to secure the payment by contractors of the rates of wages generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."

His contention was that the Government, while perceiving the mote that was in the contractor's eye, had failed to cast the beam out of their own eye. They compelled contractors to pay standard rates of wages to their workmen, whereas, when they employed these men directly they failed to pay their rates of wages. What was the current rate, of wages for the class of work done by those workmen at Woolwich, whose case he desired to bring before the Committee? They might be termed unskilled labourers, but as a matter of fact, they were to a certain extent skilled, and did practically the same class of labour as the men who worked for the firm of Armstrong, of Newcastle, or Mather and Platt, of Manchester. He maintained that 22s. per week at Newcastle, and 23s. per week at Manchester, was far superior to 24s. at Woolwich. Yet the Government of the wealthiest country in the world, with a revenue of a hundred millions sterling, was paying its employés at Woolwich 19s. 6d. a week. There was a law in this country that no man should be allowed to starve. They ought to go a step further and lay it down that no competent workman who was willing to work should be employed at less than a fair wage. He ought not to be employed at starvation wages, and he maintained that a large number of Government workmen are employed at starvation wages. It was constantly stated that this was a question of supply and demand. But the Government had stultified themselves twice over in connection with this point: for they were at the present moment employing at 19s. 6d. a number of men who, four or five years ago were doing precisely the same work for 17s., and who some years previously were doing it for 15s. But suppose it was a question of supply and demand, surely it would be only fair to apply the principle all round. Why not, for example to the Treasury Bench? There were doubtless many gentlemen opposite, even below the Gangway, who would be prepared to hold many of their offices at a considerably reduced salary. Or take the case of the officers of the Army, whose pay had not been increased for some generations. There were hundreds of young men, not inferior in any respect to their predecessors, presenting themselves for about a hundred vacancies. Had the British taxpayer ever suggested that the pay of the officers of the Army should be reduced? Certainly not. The British taxpayer was prepared to pay top wages for the best material; be was well aware that it was economy in the end. Whether on moral or economic grounds, it was good policy to pay the standard rate of wages. Public bodies and private employers alike had found that the best standard for the current rate of wages was the trades union rate. A report on this subject, published in 1893, showed that the Woolwich Local Board paid 24s. and Plumstead Board of Works, 24s., while private employers there paid practically the same rate; whereas the Government rate was 19s. 6d. House rent in Woolwich was 8s. and 8s. 6d., whereas in Chatham it was only 4s. 6d., in Pembroke, 3s., and in Portsmouth, 4s.; in other words, 19s. was just as good in Pembroke as 24s. in Woolwich. He had fixed on 24s. because a Minority Report of the Labour Commission laid that down as the minimum sum upon which a man, his wife, and family could live in common decency. That a public servant should not be entitled to a decent house and sufficient food in a country like this was monstrous. He frankly admitted that there were certain advantages connected with Government employment. The Government never went bankrupt, and there was a certain prestige attaching to Government employment, but putting that aside there was no other advantage whatever. Continuity of employment was given equally in good private establishments, and the prospect of advancement was as great in them as in Government factories. It was supposed that Government employés obtained a larger proportion of holidays, but that was not the case. The men in the Royal factory were in no better position than the men who worked for the best private firms. As regards sick pay, what was the position of the Government employés? They must serve three years before they became entitled to that pay, and then they were entitled to two months' sick pay during the year. Contrast this with the position of a member of a really good friendly society. After six months' payments, the payee became entitled to 12s. a week for 26 weeks, and 6s. per week for 52 weeks after that. Further, in the event of his death, his widow became entitled to a bonus of £10, and he would receive £5 if his wife died. Consequently, for 6d. a week men could provide themselves with greater advantages than were given by the Government. Of course, there was the question of medical attendance, and he was given to understand that this cost the Government 1s. per week. But why should the men be penalised because the Government managed so badly, when they could contract with any good friendly society for the sum of 6d.? There was, he presumed, a general desire for some system of superannuation, and personally he was strongly in favour of that. He should have supposed that Members occupying the other side of the House, who had so strongly advocated both old-age pensions and workmen's dwellings, would be equally in favour of that. He would be glad to see it applied the whole country over, but until that could be done, let it apply to Government employés. Then, as to injury pay. Any man injured in the course of his employment was entitled to full pay for three months, and while under the doctor's care; but, on the other hand, the Government contracted themselves out of the Employers' Liability Act, and no compensation was paid to the relatives of a man fatally injured. It would be said that the Government did all it could for the willows, but that amounted to getting employment such as bag-making out of charity, but the widow had no claim against the Government. When a man was injured during his employment, and the injury was not due to his own negligence, the sufferer should be generously treated, it being borne in mind that unless assisted he would ultimately come upon the rates. He estimated that it would cost about £30,000 additional to act in common justice towards these labourers in Government employ, raising the wages to 24s., the current rate in the London area. The workmen at Woolwich were at a disadvantage as compared with those in the employment of private firms in that they were bound to keep up what might be called an appearance of sham respectability, and so it was found that, after these regular hours of employment, some of them eked out their wretched wages by costermongering. He would venture to read an extract from a gentleman who was an ornament of the Church to which he belonged, the rector of Woolwich:—

"I feel very strongly that sixpence per hour for a week of 48 hours is the minimum you can call a fair wage in the County of London. The claim as to privileges is nonsense."

A statement drawn up by the same authority gave facts that would enable the Committee to realise their position. A labourer earned 20s. a week and had to support a wife and two children. For two rooms he paid 4s. a week, and his weekly expenditure on meat was 2s. 6d. On this he performed exhausting physical labour, helping to make that material without which our defensive forces would be valueless. Thirty millions annually were spent on these defensive forces, and this man, engaged in the work of providing the material, was confined to 2½d. worth of meat per day. It should be remembered that in Woolwich workmen had not the advantage of cheap markets workmen had elsewhere, and on a fair estimate it might be said that 24s. a week in Woolwich was equal to 20s. in Portsmouth. Woolwich was one of those places indicated by Mr. Booth as the darkest spots in England. With these men in a position oscillating between independence and pauperism, their wives and daughters were situated amid all the allurements of a garrison town, surrounded by temptations to drink and immorality. This was a state of things that should not exist in connection with Government employment. Many years ago, upon the discussion of the ten hours' Bill, a great writer who had shed lustre on the literature of his country made use of the following words:—

"It concerns the commonwealth that the great hotly of the people should not live in a way which makes life wretched and short, which enfeebles the body and pollutes the mind;"

and, paraphrasing that, he concluded his appeal to the Government by saying it was their duty so to act that every class in the community might at least be afforded the opportunity of living in a way which made life brighter and longer, which invigorated the body and purified the mind. He moved the reduction of the vote by £50.

said he did not think it was the fault of the Government that the War Department were not liable for injuries under the Employers' Liability Act, for, if he rightly remembered, when the last Bill on the subject was going forward, the Government assented to a clause imposing that liability, and, no doubt, when an amending Bill was again before Parliament, they would again assent. He thoroughly believed that the Financial Secretary to the War Office desired that the labourers should be paid the wages current in the district, but 5d. an hour was not the current rate. Local information would convince the hon. Gentleman of that. When the hours of labour in the arsenal were reduced by the late Secretary for War, it was stated that this should not affect the rate of pay. A comparison was sometimes made between the wages paid in Newcastle and the wages paid in London. He was quite willing to reckon at the former rate, if a proper allowance were made for the increased rent in London. The rent question must be taken into account, since there was an Act of Parliament to forbid overcrowding. If there were a desire to pay the current rate of wages, let the Government find out what it was. A year or two ago the Labour Department of the Board of Trade was instructed to find out the current rate for unskilled labourers at Woolwich, among others. No doubt that Report was confidential, but in 1896 a Report was presented to the House for the year 1894, and from the figures quoted he was sure that the Labour Department must have reported that the current rate was 6d. to 6½d. an hour for unskilled labourers. If that was so the Report had not been acted up to. As to the men above or below the full age, he did not press; but with regard to fully competent unskilled workmen, the Government must say whether they thought 20s. a week a sufficient wage. The right hon. Member for Stirling, when Secretary of State for War, said that the Government were anxious to avoid any act or omission which would betoken indifference to the welfare of the workmen, or which could be quoted by private employers as a justification for illiberal dealings with their workmen. In 1893, speaking on the question of sweating, the present Financial Secretary to the War Office said: "This is a national question with which no parish can adequately deal. It is one with which the Government alone can cope." He went down to the arsenal the other day and made inquiries of the contractors, Messrs. Johnson, who were acting under the Fair Wages Resolution. They had 60 labourers who were paid 6½d. an hour now, though formerly 6d. an hour was the rate. That made 27s. for a week of 50 hours, and side by side with the men receiving that wage, were the men from the arsenal earning only 20s. a week. If a Fair Wages Resolution were forced on the contractors, it ought at least to be observed by the Government themselves. At the time of the General Election, the Leader of the House issued a programme of Unionist policy to his Manchester constituents, Paragraph 13 of which was "Fair wages to Government workmen." He copied that paragraph into his own programme, thinking that it would be safer to do so; and he felt that that was a pledge on his part. But the present Government had been in Office 18 months, and, as private Members' time had been taken away they were powerless. He should certainly vote in favour of the Motion, if he felt it necessary to enforce a proper sense of responsibility in this matter on the War Office; but he understood that the Government were willing to give attention to the matter. If a Committee were appointed now, nothing could be done this Session. But if no steps were taken before next Session to remedy the grievance, he should feel justified in calling attention to Paragraph 13 of the First Lord of the Treasury's programme, and in moving for the appointment of a Committee. His political existence depended upon his performing his promises to his constituents, and he should endeavour to fulfil them.

said that the Government approached this subject with no adverse or hostile spirit. In cases of this kind it was much easier to say yes than no. But the Government and Parliament were trustees of the taxpayers' money, and they were not entitled to spend it without sufficient cause being shown. Was the Government, then, required to pay a practically settled rate of wages, or was it required to pay the wages which were current in each particular district? If the Government paid a rate of wages which was higher than the current rate of wages given in the district the difference must be made up by somebody, and obviously it must be by the taxpayers of the country. That was to say, they were going to take taxes paid, say, by a Dorsetshire labourer receiving 14s. a week, in order to enhance the wages of a certain class of workmen in London, and those by no means the worst off. If they were to adopt a principle of that kind they would very soon hear from the Dorsetshire labourer, who would want to know when his turn was coming. The question between them was whether or not they were paying the current wage in the district. Now, the Member for Woolwich had cited the case of Messrs. Johnson. There could not be a better case to show that in dealing with matters of this kind they must be extremely cautious to compare things which were actually on the same basis. When they spoke of 24s. or 20s. a week, they must ask for what it was paid and the conditions under which the service was given. Now, what was the answer in regard to Messrs. Johnson? They informed him that the number of men employed by them varies from time to time. The men work 50 hours a week for 40 weeks, and they get 27s. a week; they work 47 hours a week for six weeks, and they get 25s. 5d.; and they work 44 hours a week for six weeks, and they get 2.3s. 10d. But mark the class of labourers these were. They were men of a selected class. For what did Messrs. Johnson say:—

"Those who received 6½d. an hour cannot fairly he described as unskilled. They must he good navvies or excavators or bricklayers' labourers, accustomed to scaffolding work, men of superior physique, and of considerable experience, and who find their own picks and shovels. Ordinary labourers would get 6d. only and even these must he full-grown, active men."

These men did not compare in any degree with the lowest class of labourers employed at the, Ordnance factories. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not! Because they are a selected, skilled class.

Not those paid 6d.

Yes, they are selected in regard to strength, age, and experience. And if they went to a class of men of that kind, he said at once that they had plenty of them employed at Woolwich, but they were not men receiving 20s. or 24s. a week, but men receiving wages fully equivalent to the wages stated by Messrs. Johnson to be paid by them.

The hon. Gentleman has read out that ordinary labourers receive 6d.

The point is not as to the detail of the payment, but the class of men employed, and what I say is that where we have labourers of that character we pay a great deal more than the maximum wage of 20s. a week. The wages paid by the Woolwich Local Board had been cited. He knew that that Board were paying 24s. a week, but what for? The men in the employment of the Woolwich Local Board worked 48 hours a week for five months, and 56½ hours for seven months, so that they worked on an average all the year round 53 hours per week. Now, 24s. per week for 53 hours was 21s. 9d. a week for 48 hours. Therefore, it would be seen that the Woolwich Local Board paid its men 24s. a week under conditions far more onerous than those under which the employés at the Ordnance factories worked. But take the case a little further. He had made careful inquiry as to the wages paid in the Woolwich district; and it resulted in this, that unquestionably, when the privileges and advantages of the Ordnance factory labourers of the lowest class were taken into account, the sum which they received weekly was fully equal to that which they would get in private employment. He had before him the names of ten firms, the largest employers of labour in the district. The first thing that came out was that the men who were in the service of these private contractors did not work 48 hours a week as the ordnance factory hands did, but 54 hours, and they worked without any of the privileges which were enjoyed in the Government establishment. He would take the case of an employer "D," which looked, on the face of it, against himself. "D" employed his men for 54 hours a week, and he paid them £1 7s. But a man was not kept if he was not considered worth the money. ["Hear, hear!"] What did that show? It showed that this was a selected class of labourer, whereas in the Ordnance factory, he was not dealing with a selected class of labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "You ought to!"] Take, again, the case of "F." They worked their labourers for 54 hours a week, and they paid a guinea; and they stated that they had no difficulty whatever in getting labour at that rate. A guinea for 54 hours was 18s. 8d. for 48 hours, and there was not a man in Government employment who was not getting more than 18s. 8d. It was further shown that the men working 54 hours a week at 24s. must be labourers of a particular skilled class, required to perform certain work, and when their wages were worked out they came at 48 hours to 21s. 3d. Another point which should not be forgotten was that the occupation of the Government workmen was continuous. Dealing with the case as it actually existed at the Ordnance factory, he said that the question of the minimum rate of wages affected a comparatively few men. The figures which he would quote to the Committee were given on the assumption that the privileges which those men enjoyed would work out to the value of 6d. per week. He believed that in the time of the late Government a careful investigation was instituted, with the result that the subject was examined over three consecutive years. The privileges worked out in one year at 11d., the following year at about 10d., and in another year to something over 1s. But taking the figure at 6d. in connection with the question of privileges, he showed that there were four-and-a-half days full pay for holiday, medical attendance to which the men were entitled, sick pay if a man served three years, and a gratuity of £1 for every year's service after the completion of seven years. There were 428 skilled labourers and 645 unskilled labourers who nominally received pay of less than 24s. per week. Of the 428 labourers, 242 received pay equivalent to 23s. 6d. a week, assuming that the advantages were worth 6d. He was speaking of the Ordnance factories as a whole. There were eight who received 28s., 17, 22s. 6d., 64 22s., 97 21s. 6d.; it would thus be seen that only a small portion of 160 were receiving less than 22s. 6d. a week. This was skilled labour, but it should be borne in mind that among the skilled men there were some boys who remained on because they had not got any other service to go to, and they could earn a fair wage. Of the 645 labourers less than 100 of them received less than 21s. on the calculation that the privileges were worth 6d. a week; 117 received 23s., 111 received 22s. 6d., and 318 received 21s. 6d. Thus, when the hon. Member who moved this Resolution spoke of 24s. a week, he would see that the Government was not very far off his ideal after all. The whole question was whether, according to what was ascertained to be the current rate in the district, the Government ought to go beyond that sum. In 1894 the late Government went carefully into the question; they examined the case as he had examined it for himself. They endeavoured to ascertain accurately what was the current rate in the district, and, satisfied that the Government rate was somewhat below the current rate, they raised the Government rate to what they believed from the evidence to be the current rate paid in the district. The question now was: "Has the current rate in the district of Woolwich changed since 1894, when the late Government came to the conclusion that the level to which they raised their wages satisfied that current rate?" Having most carefully looked into the question, he failed to get evidence which convinced him that, all things taken into account, the Government was not still paying what was the current rate in the district. But he was authorised by the Secretary of State for War to say a good deal more than that. The Secretary of State had himself given personal attention to the matter, and he was perfectly willing to receive any communication that could be made to him upon it. It was said that the Secretary of State had declined to receive a deputation which the Woolwich Local Board wished to send him in relation to the wages paid in the Ordnance factory. The Committee, however, would remember that when the Woolwich Local Board asked the Secretary of State to pay 24s. a week to the lowest class of labourer they were asking the Secretary of State to do that which they did not do themselves. The Woolwich Local Board were only paying 21s. 9d. for 48 hours, though it was true that they were paying 24s. for 53 hours. If the Woolwich Local Board was held out as a model for the Government to follow in relation to wages, it was but fair to ask: "Who elects the Woolwich Local Board?" There were 15,000 artisans in the employment of the Government at Woolwich, and these men elected the Local Board; and he doubted whether any rate of wages which the Woolwich Local Board chose to pay must be accepted by the Government, because the men would be practically fixing their own wages. The Government must do what it required its contractors to do. [Cheers.] If it required its contractors to pay the current rate of wages in the district, it must also pay the current rate. ["Hear, hear!"] The only point was the question of fact. The evidence in his possession tended to show that the Government were doing this, but if that evidence could be shaken by any which the hon. Member for Woolwich or West Newington, or others could produce showing that the Government were not paying the current rate of wages for the Woolwich district, he said on behalf of the War Department and the Secretary of State, that the wages of the artisans in the ordnance factory should be raised to that level.

said that if this question had sprung up for the first time that day, the promise of the hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory. This subject had, however, been going on for years, and as far as the present Government were concerned the question had been going on for months. The facts had been placed before the Government repeatedly. Deputations had waited upon Members of the Government, and others had been wishful to wait upon them, but unfortunately had not been received in the ordinary way. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress, for example, had proposed to send a deputation.

said that that was so, but the Secretary of State thought that no advantage would be gained by his consenting to receive the deputation. He explained, however, that if those who proposed to wait upon him would lay before him in writing what they had to say, he would give their representations his careful consideration.

said that it seemed as if the belated assurance now given by the Government had only been given because they were afraid of the opposition of their own supporters. There was a tendency on the part of the Government to force contractors under the Fair Wages Resolution to give better terms to those whom they employed than were given by the Government themselves. The hon. Member had at last given a satisfactory assurance upon that point, recognising that the Government must pay in future the rates of wages which they imposed upon their own contractors. That principle, however, had been violated in the past, and was, he feared, being violated at the present time. In the particular case under discussion, fair wages were not being paid to those whom the hon. Member had called the lowest class of labourers in the Ordnance Department. He agreed that workmen ought not to use their electoral power for the purpose of obtaining what the Financial Secretary for War termed a disproportionate advance in wages. In this case, however, the men received only 20s. a week, which did not amount to a fair wage, and it could not be said that they were using electoral power to obtain a disproportionate advance. The Financial Secretary bad argued that in considering this question they must take hours of labour into consideration as well as wages. But regard ought also to be paid to the conditions of existence in the locality where the workmen were employed, and house rent in Woolwich and Plumstead was very high indeed, there being parts of London where rents were less high. The very high rents in Woolwich had led to a general rise in wages, with which, however, the wages paid by the Government had not kept pace. The question of the value of the privileges accorded to the men in the lowest class of labour had been discussed at a meeting of Members and men, and the former had satisfied themselves that the workmen's statement was true, that an ordinary sound friendly society-would confer upon them the privileges which they obtained from the Government for a considerably smaller sum than 6d. per week. The men whom he had seen who performed this lowest class of labour were a remarkably good looking set, and he could not help thinking that the Government were very lucky to get the services of such men for the rate of wages paid. Some of these men were doing extra work which the Government would not wish them to do in order to eke out a livelihood. He and other hon. Members were shocked and horrified when they learnt the means by which some of these men earned what was necessary in order that they might keep up the appearance which the Department demanded of them. The Financial Secretary had said that the wages of these men were raised some years ago by the late Government. Since that time, however, there had been a rise in the local rate of wages, amounting probably to 6d. a week. The Government, they were told, had appealed to the Labour Department to advise them upon this question. The advice given them had not been made public, and he inferred from that that the Report of the Department was not favourable to their view, and showed that in the case of this lowest class of labour they were not paying the current rate of wages in the district. He had made inquiries, and had only succeeded in hearing of one case, in which a small number of men were concerned, and in which the rate paid was as low as the rate paid by the Government.

said he had a Return compiled by the Board of Trade giving the wages paid in London and the rates recognised by the National Association of Master Builders. A footnote was added by the Board of Trade to the effect that the comparison was not an exact one, because the latter 'only affected bricklayers' labourers, whereas the Return from the Department referred to were classes of ordinary labour.

said he was familiar with that Return, but he understood that the Government promised to inquire into this specific question through the Labour Department, and he asked whether that Department had or had not told them they were paying the current rate?

said there were one or two points which he thought the Committee should take into consideration before they determined this question. The Financial Secretary had tried to make the Committee believe that Government workmen were in a better position than workmen in the employ of private firms. That was really a fallacy. They had to deal with this question from the living point of view. The number of hours of work might be so curtailed that the workmen could not make a proper livelihood. That was the state of affairs in the Government factory in his constituency. They had had very slack times, and the number of hours, instead of being 48 in the week, were often considerably less, and the men, in his judgment, were not able to earn a sufficient livelihood. Now that the Government only gave a gratuity after a man had worked seven years of £1 for every year of work and no pension, it was absolutely necessary, in settling the rate of wages, that the amount of money it was necessary for a man to put by should be considered. The Financial Secretary also said that one of the advantages of Government employment was that it was continuous. It was simply surprising to note the number of periods of slackness which the Government factory in his constituency had gone through. He felt that the Government ought to do a little more than merely pay the lowest rate of wages given in a particular locality. He thought the Government ought to set an example to other employers, and give a fair wage to the lowest labourer in their employ. It was urged, also, that Government employés had the services of a doctor, but he knew many cases in which the men had sought other advice because they had no faith in the medical officer appointed by the Government, and therefore that advantage must be discounted to that extent. He denied that the Government did give continuous employment. If a factory was shut for stock-taking purposes, the men were not allowed to make up the loss at other times, and where a man was only receiving a wage that just enabled him to maintain himself and his family, it was very hard on him to be told that the factory must be shut for so many days. Admiralty men were entirely differently treated. They received a pension when they reached a certain age; but the War Office simply paid the current rate of wages, and the men received nothing but the gratuity he had spoken of. He therefore thought it was wrong to contend that men working under such conditions were better off than those working for private firms.

contended that the Government ought to be in the first flight of employers, and that their employés ought to be the best men of their class. The Financial Secretary had referred to the question of hours of work. No one recognised the value of the eight hours' day more than he did, but if the price of it was to be the reduction of wages below the point at which a family could be maintained in decency, then it might be dearly purchased. The whole case of the Financial Secretary was that the men at Woolwich were now suffering for having acquired the eight hours' day. If that was so, it was distinctly contrary to the pledge given by the Government. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was of a type with which the Committee was familiar. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of obtaining men at a lower rate, and told the Committee that they were trustees for the public. So they were, but they were also employers for the public, and as employers for the public they should treat their workmen exactly as they required contractors employed by them to treat their workmen. It seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman failed to grapple with the case put before him of the contractor at Woolwich. He made no distinction between the case of the men receiving 6½d. an hour and those receiving only 6d. He would cite the case of a great company, though he did not consider them model employers. He referred to the London and St. Katharine's Dock Company. There was a meeting of that Company the other day, and the Chairman spoke of the relations of the Company with their workmen. This dock Company had recently reorganised their labour system, and instead of having a floating staff, they now had a permanent staff. That Company had over 3,000 seamen; it paid them 24s. a week with half pay for sickness; and they were entitled to a fair pension. The Government ought to be ashamed to employ its workmen on terms less favourable than those given by a dock company. He thought they had a right to complain of the substance of the Government reply, and hoped the matter would be pressed to a Division.

said the House would readily understand that they did not minimise the importance of this question. It was a disagreeable task even to seem for a moment to resist an appeal of this kind. To comply with the request now made would bring popularity to any Government. But the sufferers from such a course would be that wider public for whom after all they were the trustees. He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject would feel that the general policy of the Government was one which they might and ought to accept. They held in the strongest way that the Government should be a model employer of labour. [Cheers.] They did not think it the business of the Government to initiate great changes in regard to the labour market, but in any district where there were Government works the Government should be able to say, "We treat our workmen as the good employer in this district does and would do." These were the principles they had always laid down; these were the principles they desired most earnestly to carry out. With regard to the particular question of Woolwich, he could assure the Committee that the departments concerned had done their best to discover what was the current rate of wages for the various classes of employment in which they were concerned. Not only would the Government be ready to receive and consider any representations which might be brought before them tending to show that the judgment they had formed on the question was an erroneous judgment, but they would certainly regard it as their duty to employ all official means at their command to discover for themselves, even apart from such representations, what was the state of wages that ought to be paid to the unskilled and other workmen in the employment of the State. He hoped that policy would commend itself to both sides and would satisfy the Committee that the Government were not backward in carrying out views which they held, not as distinguished from their predecessors, but in common, he believed with all Governments. If he was right in thinking that perhaps he had satisfied the Committee as to the general excellence of the intentions of the Government, they might now be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place and proceed to the other Votes. ["Hear!"]

said that he had heard but one statement from the right hon. Gentleman with undisguised satisfaction—that this was not a question which affected one party more than another. He regretted the conclusion at which the Government had arrived. This question affected the lowest paid labourers in the Government service. While the State treated its highly paid officials well it treated the poor humble labourer in a shabby niggardly fashion. The Government had mixed up the question of wages and hours. Make these men work 50 or 52 hours, but give them the 24s. They had evidence on the question of hours from the late Government. Did the present Government go back from the statement of the late Secretary for War, that as the result of the experiment of a 48 hours week at Woolwich, they found that as much work and better work was done as had formerly been done in 52 or 53 hours. If they still adhered to that policy the question of hours did not arise. The plea he put forward was that a man could not live in London on less than 24s., and therefore the sum should be paid to adult labourers. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary was only able to mention one case where an employer refused this claim to pay 24s. a week. The case mentioned was not a representative case, and so far as Woolwich and London generally were concerned the evidence was clearly against the position the Government had taken up. Speaking broadly, it was a rule that would be accepted by any right-minded employer, that the minimum wage of an adult workman must not be less than 24s.

I stated that I had received replies from many large employers in Woolwich district, and in no instance were they paying 24s. for a week of 48 hours.

said the hon. Gentleman was again mixing up the question of hours and wages. If it was necessary that in order to pay their labourers 24s. the Government should work them 52 hours, then in God's name give them the wages and work them the extra hours. It was the opinion of the late Secretary of State however, that they got as good work in 48 hours as in 52, and they might as well give the 24s. for the smaller number. The hon. Gentleman asked for what was the 24s. paid. It was paid in order to enable a workman and his wife and family to live decently. The payment was not made as a bribe to some unfortunate fellow to come in and do the work for less, it was payment to enable a man to live, because it was the lowest at which he could live considering the whole question of London expenses. There was no need to make this a party question, let it be left for the decision of the House. The Government had suffered defeat in another place this week, and this would be a good point upon which to defeat them in the House of Commons. It would do no harm to this Government or the next. This appeal was made on behalf of some 1,000 or 1,100 men, the amount of money involved was not large, it was a righteous claim, he hoped it would be pressed to a division and would be largely supported from the other side of the House.

said, in reply to the Leader of the House, that he had no desire to trespass on the time of the Committee, but would venture to make this one remark, that he had had nothing definite in reply to his appeal. He had laid clearly before the Committee the state of affairs at Woolwich, that there were men employed at 20s. a week who had to pay 8s. of that for house rent, and therefore had to support themselves, their wives and families upon 12s. a week. This was a degrading state of things. As to the comparison with the Dorset labourer with 10s. or 12s. a week, he at least had a roof over his head. If there was a definite promise in regard to a definite number of these Woolwich labourers he would be satisfied.

said the question before the Committee was whether the Government paid or would consent to pay the rate of wages current in the district, and he confessed that a short time before he had considerable sympathy with hon. Members opposite, but the hon. Member (Mr. Lough), after promising not to introduce politics, trespassed considerably in that direction. He could not help thinking that the offer made by the Leader of the House was one that could not fairly be refused, and, though he sympathised with the the object of the hon. Member for Newington, he could not, after the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, vote for the Motion if it was carried to a Division. The promise had been made on behalf of the Government to make inquiries and receive every representation, and if it was proved that the current rate of wages was below the rate current in the district the rate should be raised, and he had no doubt the Government were earnest in this matter.

thought the Government had not taken up a very distinguished or dignified position by the promise they had made. They should not lag behind waiting to see what private employers paid, and then, after pressure in the House, and having examples thrust upon them, making a virtue of necessity, grant the concession. He desired to meet the question from the ordinary Trades Union point of view. He represented a constituency in which the labour feeling was very strong, and the prevalent opinion in labour circles—and he believed a perfectly justifiable feeling—was this: that the Government were bound to set an example in this matter and be, if possible, in advance of private firms, for the Government were the largest employers of labour in the country. Generally speaking, the ordinary artisan would consider this from a broad standpoint. He would say:—

"Here at one end of the scale are Ministers and high officials receiving enormous salaries and at the bottom are these unfortunate labourers at Woolwich Arsenal receiving a very poor wage for their work, and he would say, if England is rich enough to pay Ministers, Judges, and public officers at this high rate—and it was right they should be so paid—then surely the country is rich enough to pay a living wage to these poor labourers."

That would be the view taken by the ordinary artisan. The Leader of the House was known to be in general sympathy with what were called humanitarian views, and did he not think that the Government should be in a position where they could not be assailed for paying less wages than county councils and other popularly elected bodies paid to their servants? If the right hon. Gentleman thought the Government could afford to take an inferior position to these public bodies, could afford to say "We will pay starvation wages to the humbler class of our servants, and pay extravagantly high the higher branches of service," then assuredly he would have a stern account to render to the country when the day of reckoning came. This was no matter for Party recrimination. The Tory Party, no more than the Liberal Party desired, to have Government labourers underpaid, and all that was required was that the House of Commons should have the courage of its opinions, and declare that the humbler employés of the State should receive a fair, a just, a living wage. Anything short of that would be disastrous to our political system and disgraceful to the State.

said that, as the Local Board of Health of Woolwich had been referred to, and as that was a body of whom he had had long experience and had great respect, he wished to explain that, after the Royal Commission in 1890 reported in favour of all municipal bodies taking precaution to insure the payment of wages at reasonable rates, the Board raised the wages of its employés to 24s., and as a matter of fact the situation became thus, that the men who swept the streets got wages of 24s. while of the men who paid the rates many only received 20s. a week. Naturally this created a little jealousy. Surely the labourer in the arsenal was not of a lower character than that of sweeping the streets. He could not admit that it was any justification for the Government that some firms paid at a lower rate than the Government rate. The Government should set the example for a fair rate. He could not but contrast the manner in which the subject was treated by the War Department with the more generous spirit that attended the administration of Naval matters. In the Inquiry to which reference had been made, the Department would be judge in its own case. On a previous occasion inquiries of this nature were undertaken by the Board of Trade, and if the Leader of the House would give an assurance that a similar policy should be adopted, and that the Labour Department of the Board of Trade should advise the War Department as to the proper rate of pay, it was an offer that should be accepted, but without such an assurance he thought a Division should be taken.

said he thought the statement made covered this point. The statement was that not only would the War Department use such methods as were open to make inquiry as to the rate of wages in the district, but that they would employ all the official machinery at the disposal of the Government for that purpose, and that of course included in the first rank such assistance as could be given by the Board of Trade.

said he understood that the hours of labour differed in dockyards from the hours of contractors, and that therefore the rate of payment was relatively not less in the dockyards than with other employers. If the Leader of the House would give an assurance that dockyard employés would not be penalised in consequence of the difference in hours, no doubt this discussion would speedily come to a close.

said that he had a very high respect for the First Lord of the Treasury, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely disposed to do the right thing. But he suggested that "reasonable rate of wages" would be a better subject for inquiry than "current rate of wages." "Current rate" was perfectly applicable to men in a good position, but for men on the verge of starvation it was scarcely good enough. As an old employer of labour he knew how fallacious it was to look simply to the rate of wages paid, for it did not follow that the men worked full time. In a case of this kind, the minimum standard should be the living wage.

said that he had the greatest respect for the First Lord of the Treasury, but, if he were one of the unfortunate men at Woolwich with the miserable pittance of 20s. a week, he should hardly be satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. Neither was he satisfied with the tone of the remarks of the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the War Office was bound to obtain its labour at the lowest possible figure.

I had no such thought in my mind; if the hon. Member had listened to what I said, he would not have received such an impression.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had frequently spoken of these labourers being an inferior class of men.

I did not. I spoke of the lowest class of labourer; but that expression had nothing to do with the character of the men employed.

said that the hon. Gentleman had described these men employed at the arsenal as inferior to the labourers employed by private firms for higher wages. But he himself took a higher standpoint. He was not concerned so much that the Government should pay the current rate of wages, as that they should pay to the men in their employment a wage which would enable them to maintain their wives and families in decency and comfort. And the wage paid to hundreds of men at Woolwich did not enable them to fulfil those conditions. In no party spirit he asked hon. Members opposite to consider the wretched position of men getting 21s. a week, and paying 8s. a week in rent. What remained to them was but the price of a bottle of wine. The consequence of such wages was, that the men's wives had to go out to work, and the children were neglected. The price of that neglect had to be paid in the long run by the community. Such wages were quite insufficient; and the Government ought to endeavour to be a model employer of labour.

called attention to the jamming of the Lee-Metford magazine rifle, and so rendering the rifle for the time absolutely useless and inefficient. About a fortnight ago he put a question on the subject to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, and the answer given to him was that the Lee-Metford magazine rifle was not intended to be used for blank-cartridge, and that, with regard to ball cartridge, for years the War Office has had no official complaint. Such an answer, put forward in the light-hearted way in which answers were given to Ministers, to be repeated in the House to hon. Members, was, he ventured to say, what they might expect to get at a peace meeting in Exeter Hall, and it was entirely contrary to facts. If the Financial Secretary would only refer to the Instructions brought out with the seal and cachet of the War Office, he would find detailed rules and regulations laid down as to how this blank cartridge, which he said was not intended to be used in the magazine in the Lee-Metford, was to be fired. As to the second and more important part of the hon. Gentleman's answer, they all knew what an "official" complaintmeant. A Government Department, unless they had a complaint written out on a sheet of foolscap, paid no attention to it whatever. But what he said and knew was that at some battalion practice, only a fortnight ago, at the ranges near Gravesend, there were a very considerable number of jammed rifles while firing ball cartridge. Military Members of the Committee know very well that when the Lee-Metford jammed with ball cartridge you could not extract it by giving the butt a kick with your boot; the rifle had to go back to the armoury sergeant. Suppose that happened in action. You could not send half-a-dozen to the armoury sergeant in the rear to have the bullets extracted. The weapon for a time was rendered as useless as a walking-stick, and less useful than a poker because not so well balanced. One could imagine what the effect would be in the campaign going on up the Nile if 20 per cent. of the 100 men in a company in the face of a square suddenly found their rifles jam, and he need only remind the Committee that at Abou Klea and El Teb, the jamming of a Maxim led, in the former case, to the death of a good many gallant men, and in the latter, as was stated at the time, to the breaking of the square. He only desired an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he really would look into the matter.

moved to reduce the Vote by £50. The hon. Member for Hythe, who had been prevented from being present, had prepared a Resolution on this subject which would have raised the whole question of the administration of the Ordnance Factories and their present management. Since a civilian had been put at the head of the Ordnance Factories by the late Mr. Stanhope some years ago, a great change had now come over the administration of the factories. Judging by the way in which the Estimate was presented to Parliament, one would suppose that the Committee were voting on the paltry sum of £100, whereas if the paper was examined it would be seen that it related to nearly £3,000,000. The questions embraced in the whole Vote included among other things the manufacture of guns for the Army and Navy, the guns to be produced for the Indian Government and the arms to be used in the colonies, and the question was whether the country was receiving its money's worth or not. He did not impute anything unfair or unreasonable to those in charge of the preparation of the Army Estimates, but it was a great evil that the Ordnance Vote, in comparison with previous years, should be practically withdrawn from examination and criticism by being presented to the House in a separate paper. In consequence of the mode of presenting the Vote it was impossible for anyone, however closely acquainted with the details, to tell what particular sum was allotted to any particular manufacture. It was better that the Government should frankly take the House into its confidence and should return to the former practice of giving the whole of the details on the Estimates. Dissatisfaction was being expressed because of late years the whole direction and superintendence of the Ordnance Factories had passed into civilian hands. He said not a word in disparagement of that gentleman. He was a most laborious official and devoted attention to his work. But it would be more satisfactory if the details were allowed to appear in the Estimates as before.

said that in addition to jamming of the rifles, to which attention had been called, there was the additional serious defect caused by the effects of cordite powder. After a certain number of rounds had been fired there was an emenation of some kind of gas from the rifle which had such an. effect on the eyes of the men using it as almost to blind them. After firing 80 or 90 rounds it was found to be impossible for the men to continue using the rifle. The result was that even if the rifle was not put out of action by the jamming of the bullet, the men were put out of action by the blinding of the eyes.

said that the question of rifle-jamming, if it assumed the proportions which had been stated, would need serious attention. The blinding effects of the powder, to which attention had been called, was also a very important point and one which, with regard to the carbine, at least, was engaging the serious attention of the Department. As to jamming, he did not quite understand whether the complaint was that the musketry instructions forced a man to fire blank cartridge from the magazine. (Major RASCH: "Yes.") In that case there seemed to be some difference between the instructions and the practice which appeared to need setting right, because he understood that blank cartridge was not intended to be used in the magazine of the rifle. If the jamming was general it was a serious matter, but the Department had no official complaints on the subject. Obviously the incidents of jamming at Gravesend should be reported, and be assured his hon. Friend that, if reported, the question would be examined without delay. As to the complaint of the Vote being presented in this form, he said that the present arrangement was adopted as being that which enabled Parliament to have the largest control over it and the most information as to the Vote. The reason why the original Paper relating to the Ordnance Factory Vote was not presented bound up with the Ordinary Votes was that it was not always possible at the very moment when the Army Estimates were themselves presented to hand over the Estimate for the Ordnance Factories, which was an Estimate depending on the supplies ordered by the Admiralty War Office of India, and which, therefore, might require adjustment after these Estimates had been agreed upon. But there was no desire to elude the vigilance of Parliament, and the facts relating to the Ordnance Vote were always before the House before the Army Estimates were brought up for discussion. The present civilian head of the Ordnance Factories had discharged admirably the duties of his office. There had never been a time when the articles supplied by the Ordnance Factories had been supplied more promptly, cheaply and regularly than they were at this moment. At the beginning of the year promises had been made to the House both as to the conversion of guns and as to new guns. Those promises everybody agreed were thoroughly satisfactory, and they had all been fulfilled. The guns promised for the first of June had been completed before the middle of May, and the promises made as to the completion of weapons on other dates had been fulfilled in an equally satisfactory manner.

Have we a reserve?

said that that was a more general question than the one which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Member. It was not being lost sight of. His hon. and gallant Friend, he thought, had moved this reduction under a misconception. There was nothing in the way in which this Vote was brought forward that required amendment. The hon. and gallant Member had probably in his mind the Factory Accounts. It was unavoidable that some months should elapse before they were presented, but they were duly presented and went before the Controller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

did not think the hon. Member's explanation satisfactory in all respects, especially in respect of the reserve of guns, but, as his object was only to call attention to the important points which he had referred to, he did not intend to press his Amendment.

asked whether it was true that the 100-ton guns were failures, and that no more were to be manufactured? What kind of guns would be adopted in their stead, and could any use be made of any 100-ton guns that were removed from our line-of-battle ships?

said that displaced 100-ton guns were being used for shore defences. No more 100-ton guns of the present type would be manufactured, and they would be replaced by guns built on the wire system of equally destructive power and equal range. Original Question put, and agreed to. 2. £858,600, Clothing Establishment and Services—

, called attention to the question of the uniforms of the Highland militia regiments. There were five Highland regiments of the line, and to them were linked Militia battalions. The Militia battalions linked to the Cameron and the Gordon Highlanders respectively wore the same uniforms as their line battalions, but the Militia battalions linked to the Seaforth Highlanders, the Argyll and Sutherland Higlanders, and the Black Watch did not wear the uniforms of their line battalions. He held that it was very desirable that Militia regiments should wear the same uniform as the line battalions with which they were connected. One reason why this was desirable was that in camp and especially in active warfare, they would be able to take their place alongside of their line regiments; and another reason was that it would stimulate recruiting, as sentiment largely affected that matter in Scotland. He had received letters on this subject from some distinguished officers in Scotland. One of them said:—

"I at first thought that the difficulties of teaching men who had never worn the kilt, and who are only in training for a month each year, would be insuperable, but after having seen how well the Inverness and Aberdeen Militia do and look in the kilt, I have changed my opinion, and am now strongly in favour of the battalion being-dressed as their line battalion. Not only would it improve the look of the regiment, but also, I think, it would have a good effect on recruiting. There would no doubt he some difficulties to be got over the first year, but after that matters would work quite smoothly, and I think that there not only would be no additional expense but that clothing could be done cheaper."

The other correspondent said:—

"It would help greatly towards their popularity if the Highland Militia Regiments were put into kilts instead of trews. I was at Barry camp this training, and saw the Inver-ness-shire Militia—2nd Battalion Cameron Highlanders—in their kilts, and they certainly looked uncommonly well and smart, and very proud of themselves."

The Militia form a most important and valuable branch of our defensive forces, and at the present time there is some fear of their interests falling between the Regulars and Volunteers; and I strongly recommend the Under Secretary for War to take up this subject heartily.

complained of the unfair charges that private soldiers had to bear in respect of the wear and tear of their clothing during manœuvres. In one Regiment recently the cost to which the soldiers were put amounted to 5s. per head, in a second to 15s., in a third to 12s., and in a fourth to 15s. These sums represented the cost incurred in respect of the wear and tear of frocks, trousers and boots. Officers were also put to a great deal of unnecessary and unfair expense in connection with these manœuvres, in some instances having to pay out of their own pockets sums varying from 25s. to 30s. a day. He hoped the Under Secretary would give an undertaking that the matter should be looked into and considered on its merits.

wished to take up the cavalry side of this question, because he had more experience and knowledge of that service. He would ask the Under Secretary to bear in mind that the Army at home was divided into two kinds of quarters, namely, those in country quarters, where regiments undergo ordinary drills; and those in camps, such as Aldershot, where they had extended drills and often manœuvres on a large scale. The clothing issued to non-commissioned officers and men, and the allowance in lieu of clothing were sufficient in the first case, but in the case of camps and manœuvres it was not sufficient, and the clothing, by its material and cut, did not fulfil the requirements demanded of it. The result was that a heavy charge was cast upon the men, and as we had a voluntary Army for which we had to depend on competition in the labour market, hon. Members might be certain that men who went away from the colours spread throughout the country the cost entailed upon them by the bad wear of their uniforms. His own regiment had taken part in extended drills, flying columns and manœuvres for six years past, and he ventured to say that if hon. Members could know the cost that had been cast on the non-commissioned officers and men in consequence they would be astonished. He wished particularly to refer to the garment known as the service frock. This jacket was only issued once a year to non-commissioned officers and men, and experience had shown that a single issue was not sufficient for the work required of it. The garment was faulty in its structure, in its cut, and in its material. It frequently split from the shoulders downwards from simply doing lance or sword exercise, or even mounting a horse. Reports had been made about it on behalf of his regiment, and the answer had always been that the men were broader shouldered and more muscular than the ordinary run of men. That was a compliment, no doubt, but he did not see why broad-shouldered Scotchmen should be penalised because they possessed a physique which it was desirable the whole Army should have. There was a large reserve of those garments, which was rendered necessary, because when the Army was mobilised the Reserve men had to be put into these jackets and extra jackets had to be forwarded to the seat of war. He would suggest that the Under Secretary should consider the possibility of issuing an extra number of these jackets to each regiment. He thought it might be possible to issue three jackets in two years to each man in cavalry regiments who was called a duty man, riding in the ranks. He suggested this as a temporary means of bridging over the difficulty. If the Under Secretary could do something in the direction suggested by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epping, he would be doing not only a popular but a very just thing. The sure and lasting remedy for this was to go more carefully into the question of uniform. During the last few years distinction had been made between the show uniform and the working dress. He agreed that it was necessary to have a show dress, even smarter than at present, but it was also necessary to have a thoroughly good working dress—not such a dress as was taken out of store for war purposes, but a dress which would be in possession of the soldier to wear for ordinary drill, extended drills or autumn manœuvres. If a good practical dress could be devised of good material the difficulty connected with this extra expenditure would be obviated.

thought it was a real hardship and prejudicial to the service that the men should be out of pocket by doing the duties they were called upon to perform. Within his knowledge three years ago, a certain battalion was exposed to unusually bad weather during the autumn manœuvres and their clothing was ruined. The officers felt themselves compelled to subscribe in order to relieve the men. The battalion was obliged to be furnished with new tunics throughout, for which the officers paid rather than that the expense should fall on the men. Then again, marching had been much increased in order to get regiments into thorough marching condition. That was of course, very right, but it added greatly to the expense of the men, because a pair of boots would hardly last a week under present circumstances, and they had to be replaced. He knew one regiment that had suffered so much in this respect, that for the first time for many years it had been below its strength. These matters certainly deserved the attention of the War Office, and he was quite sure his hon. Friend the Under Secretary would take care they were considered.

said he had intended to draw attention to the fact that there were a large number of hands employed in the Royal Clothing Factory who did not receive what he considered to be the current rate of wages. But he was sure the hon. Member, when he dealt with the question as regards the Royal Factories, would take the case of the Clothing Factory at Pimlico into his consideration.

desired to put a question with regard to decentralisation of clothing. He understood that the Director General had perfected all his arrangements for decentralisation, and he was anxious to know whether they were to be carried into execution.

said that of the total Vote, £416,000 was for manufactured articles of clothing bought ready-made. A very small proportion of that, £24, 000, was for garments. He would like to know whether that represented all the ready-made garments purchased. There was a very heavy item for hoots and leggings, £22,000. He desired to know whether strict attention had been paid to the rules under which this work was manufactured outside in order to prevent sweating, and to see that a proper rate of wages was paid by the contractors.

stated that the ready-made garments supplied to the Army included plain clothes for discharged soldiers, waterproof clothing, etc. With regard to the manufacture of this clothing, the terms of the fair wages Resolution were embodied in. every contract. If there was any complaint, it was rigidly inquired into, and there was no reason to suppose that the Resolution was in any way departed from. With regard to the question of the minimum rate of wages in the Clothing Department, the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury in relation to the Ordnance Factory would apply to the Clothing Factory, and he should be very glad of any information which hon. Members could place at his disposal in the investigation which would be made. [Cheers.] As to the decentralisation of Army clothing, the general principle had been approved by the Secretary of State. It was, however, a matter of consideration from the point of view of the cost, which might be very considerable; and that had not up to the present time been fully worked out. But he had every hope that before they had to meet the Committee again and explain these Estimates a step in the direction indicated might have been accomplished. ["Hear, hear!"] The question of the kilt was a very difficult one and had occupied the attention of successive Secretaries of State for a considerable number of years. It had not been thought desirable to re-establish the kilt where the men had stripped themselves of that mysterious garment. In the year 1889 the matter was before the Adjutant General and his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and the decision come to with regard to it was—" that the opinion still prevails that, apart from the wishes of a few individual officers, no reason whatever has been shown for putting this regiment (that was the regiment that had applied) into kilts, and in the general interests of the public it was not desirable so to do." [Laughter.] He thought the words he had read was only capable of one interpretation. [Renewed laughter.] A further application was received from this particular regiment, and a similar answer was given. He was afraid the kilt would be enlarged in its boundaries. With regard to the question raised by the Members for Taunton and Manchester, if he expressed his own opinion, he thought their criticisms upon the particular garment referred to were pretty well sustained. But he desired to guard himself against the supposition that the soldier ought to consider himself hardly used if he was called upon to wear out his clothes. The clothing was furnished for a particular period, and if it did not endure longer than that period there was no hardship. It was true that if a soldier took care of his clothing and it wore longer than that period he received a consideration; but the idea was that the clothing should not be of such a character as would necessarily put him in possession of that allowance. Therefore, it had been considered that, although in consequence of manœuvres or bad weather a soldier's clothing was subjected to very hard usage, that did not necessarily give him a grievance or a right to consideration. But he fancied that, after all, to some minds at the War Office it had appeared that, looking at the fact that a special class of soldier was subjected to service causing wear and tear of clothing to which another class of soldier or regiment might not be subjected, there was an apparent grievance, and the matter had occupied the attention of the Secretary of State. He could make no promise that any allowance would be given; but he asked his hon. and gallant Friends to be assured that the matter would receive careful consideration on the part of the War Office, and he hoped some equitable adjustment would be made. ["Hear, hear!"] Vote agreed to. 3. £1,517,200, Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc.,—

pointed out that one of the items had passed through three stages since the Estimates were first presented. The item was for £32,000, and originally included a personal pension to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge of £1,800. There was also a saving on the variation items of £550. The Government, however, withdrew the allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, and the £1,800 ought to have been handed over to the Treasury. But a new Estimate was issued with the £1,800 added to the variation items, so that instead of a saving of £550 there was a loss of £1,250. Then a third Estimate was issued with the variation items restored to £550. He asked for an explanation of these changes.

said the matter was very easily explained. The original Estimate included £1,800, the proposed allowance to His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. That being abandoned, a further Estimate was circulated, the variation being changed to the extent of £1,800. The reason for this was that on getting further on in the year they found that the variations were rather against them than for them. Attention being drawn to this, the Secretary of State decided that on the whole it would be more satisfactory to the House of Commons if the Vote were reduced as a consequence of the change of policy on the part of the Government, and so the change was made and the Estimate now under discussion circulated, the total being reduced by the amount of the Vote withdrawn.

presumed that the hon. Gentleman wished the Committee to accept an assurance that the various items of variation amounted to exactly the sum of £1,800. That was indeed an extraordinary coincidence.

explained that was not so. What was done was purely as a matter of convenience, and to save the expense of printing a large number of figures.

said the object of the Government was clear; they wanted to hustle this sum of £1,800 out of the way in the most decent and constitutional manner they could, and subsequently, having changed their minds, they reverted to the original position. It was an extraordinary series of transactions on the Vote, only explicable on the theory he had indicated, that they wanted to get rid of this item of £1,800. It was hardly a dignified way of dealing with the matter. The House should have received an explanatory memorandum with the altered figures.

said although the amount in question was not large, the principle involved was one of great importance. The War Office having decided upon a certain policy, declared it by a Vote in the Estimates. It had always been the custom, when Estimates were laid on the Table, to allow these to remain as the Estimates for the year, any change desired being made when the Vote came on for discussion. But what had been the policy pursued in this case? After presenting the Estimate the Government decided to make a change, and the Leader of the House announced that when the Vote was reached he would state their policy. But in the meantime, by means not brought to the knowledge of the House, this change occurred in the Estimates which had been pointed out. Apart altogether from the particular point was the question whether the Committee were to accept the principle that Votes might be thus altered? It was to be observed that if this was sanctioned such alterations might be made without limit of time, and this alteration might have been made yesterday. He hoped that at least this discussion would have the effect of preventing such a course being taken in future. It was evident, from an examination of the items, that the Estimate had been cooked in order to meet the emergency of the withdrawal of £1,800. Wanting to have the spending of this amount, and wishing to avoid discussion upon the points involved in the item, leaves were torn out of the Estimates and others substituted, so that the Committee approached the discussion with an Estimate altogether changed from the form in which it was presented. He hoped that in future, if the Government changed their opinion on a matter of this kind, they would stand by their Estimate until it came before the Committee, and then, in conformity with precedent, let the Government ask leave to withdraw a Vote. The Committee were entitled to a declaration that what had been done in this instance should not form a precedent for the future.

said that as a point of order he ought to inform the Committee that the Government were perfectly at liberty to make a substitution in the Estimates.

said he did not raise this as a point of order.

said they did not challenge the right of the Government to alter or cook the Estimates before submitting them to the Committee, but simply submitted that, as a matter of fairness and straightforward conduct, this should not be done without explanation. Upon this they were entitled to an expression of opinion from the Leader of the House. It certainly did look rather strange that, leaves having been torn out, the £1,800 set down in respect to a certain item being withdrawn, no difference at all was shown in the total sum, the amount of £1,800 being spread over such items as Royal Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, and Cavalry. They were entitled to ask the First Lord of the Treasury—who he was sure would not mislead the Committee, and who he was perfectly willing to trust implicitly in such a matter—did the right hon. Gentleman really assure the Committee that these alterations made in items for Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, and Cavalry, which enabled the Government to present the same Estimate, were really bona fide charges in respect to these services? To put the point candidly, was this not merely a way of getting out of the difficulty in which the Government were, that they did not wish discussion on the matter when they withdrew the sum they originally put down for his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge? Was it not a way of getting out of the difficulty without facing Debate upon it? If that was the case, he was sure the First Lord of the Treasury would be the first to denounce it as a thing that ought not to be done. It was not fair to the House of Commons, it was not open and straightforward. He ventured to think the right hon. Gentleman would agree it was subterfuge.

said two quite different questions were raised in the criticisms on this subject. Hon. Members seemed to think, in the first place, that by the arrangement made the Government desired to avoid discussion upon a Vote they intended to withdraw. That was one point. It was perfectly true the Government did not want discussion on a Vote they had decided to withdraw. That was clear and only natural. Everybody would admit that the desire was legitimate enough. The second criticism was that, the amount of £1,800 being withdrawn, items were so manipulated that the total amount remained as it was before the withdrawal. Upon that it would be observed that the total sum was over 1½ million, and therefore there was a formidable array of figures. When the matter was brought to his notice, he said this was not the proper way of dealing with it. Then the Estimate, upon which the total remained the same, was withdrawn, and at considerable cost of printing the old Estimate was prepared without the variations incident on the withdrawal of the £1,800. That he thought the legitimate mode of dealing with the matter, it was adopted entirely on his responsibility, and he hoped the Committee approved.

said he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; that was exactly the point he wished to have settled, and with the Estimate as put forward now they were perfectly satisfied.

called attention to the system of compulsory retirement in the Army, and suggested an alternative system, under which there would be no increase of retiring allowance for increased length of service. He proposed that every officer should become entitled to a maximum retiring allowance at 45 years of age, but that officers should be allowed to remain in the service as long as they wished to do so, and their commanding officers, in their confidential reports, declared them to be fit for their duties. This system would, in the first place, get rid of the grievance of compulsory retirement; and it could not be to the interests of the Army that men who had done good service should be going about complaining of ill-treatment. In the second place, it would effect a great saving to the nation; and, in the third place, it would get rid of the drones in the Army. The men who had no hope of obtaining good appointments would leave the service as soon as they had become entitled to the maximum pension; while the best officers would remain in the Army, because they would be compensated for the loss of any extra retiring allowance by the good appointments which they would obtain. Under the system of compulsory retirement, the worst officers stayed on as long as possible, because the retiring allowance was proportioned to the length of service. In India, when he was there, both systems existed. In the civil service the voluntary retirement system obtained, with the result that it was a most efficient service, especially in the higher branches. In the local army, on the other hand, the retiring allowance was graduated according to length of service; and the consequence was that all the incompetent men endeavoured to remain in the service until the last moment. He proposed this scheme to the Secretary for War as one which would decrease the amount of the pension list and increase the efficiency of the Army.

said that anything which fell from the hon. and gallant Gentleman was of great interest, especially when it suggested the increase of efficiency and a decrease of expense. But he could not conceal the fact that the system suggested would revolutionise the conditions under which the service of officers in the Army was accepted. The hope had been held out to every officer that he would be allowed to serve in his rank up to the age at which it was deemed desirable for him to retire; and after that the officer was encouraged to believe that, according to his number of years' service, his pension would be graduated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that officers should be allowed to stay in the service to any age in any rank, and that the duty should be thrown on the superior officer of saying when any particular officer became unfit for his duties. That would be a most invidious task. With an enormous machine like the Army some general principle must be adopted; and under the present regulations, a captain must retire at 45, a major at 48, a colonel at 57, and a major-general at 62. If an officer was allowed to serve up to 60 years of age, and was then turned out on a pension of £200 a year, there would be a legitimate cause for complaint. There would be the choice of keeping men on in appointments for which they had become unfitted, or of turning them out into poverty. It was a sound principle which adjusted the pension to the length of service. There might be occasional cases of hardship; but the present ages had been considerably raised since the time when, the age-limit being 40, a grave scandal was caused by half the officers having to leave the Army at that age. The present limits of age obtained for the Army a very high class of officers at a low cost. The present Commander-in-Chief desired that subject to efficiency, officers should be retained in the service as long as possible; but the Secretary of State could not consider any plans by which the present system would be overthrown. Vote agreed to. 4. £172,800, Superannuation and other Allowances and Gratuities—Agreed to.

said that there was a gratifying decrease in the total sum asked for under this Vote. That decrease was mainly due to the large reduction in the sum drawn by the Procurators-fiscal. It was also gratifying that there wore no extraordinary charges for the administration of justice in the Highlands. There was no part of the country where the law was more respected. There were also gratifying circumstances connected with the personal administration of the Minister in charge of the Vote. There were, however, two matters which he desired to criticise. There were certain courts in Scotland where there was habitually considerable delay before decisions were given in civil cases. Pressure ought to be brought to bear upon the officials who were responsible in order that that state of things might be put an end to. Another point which deserved attention concerned the county of Inverness. He had been informed that an unfortunate difference of opinion had arisen between the Sheriff and the Sheriff-Clerk, with the result that the Sheriff-Clerk was out of pocket for a considerable time in respect of the remuneration which he paid to the deputies whom he employed. Attention had already been called to this matter, and he had heard with pleasure that the Secretary for Scotland had at once taken action. He wished to know whether that action had been successful, and whether by the exercise of friendly pressure by the Scotch Department, the differences to which he had alluded had been composed. Another subject calling for consideration was the anomalous position where certain officials, especially procurators fiscal were in. In North Uist, for example, the Procurator fiscal was bound to reside in a particular place, but the proprietor of the island so used his power that it was only in a surreptitious way that this Crown official was able to obtain a residence befitting his position. The Lord Advocate, he knew, had no power to put an end to this state of things, but the right hon. Gentleman might do something by bringing a certain amount of pressure to bear upon the landlord. The gentleman in question, by his conduct, was showing the country what arbitrary powers landlords possessed. There was a considerable population in North Uist, for whom the law should have terrors, and a Crown official was not placed in a particularly dignified position, when he was compelled to take lodgings in a private house. Some Sheriff-substitutes also found themselves in a similar position. In his own county the Sheriff-substitute had found difficulties placed in the way of his residing in the part of the county where he was supposed to live, and the consequence was that he resided in Ross-shire and not in the county of Sutherland. The Lord Advocate might say that an official would have no difficulty in obtaining a feu where he could build a house. His contention, however, was that a Sheriff-substitute ought to be provided with an official residence. An official having a small salary was naturally loth to build a house which his successor might not care to take over. Turning to another matter, he saw from the Estimates that there were allowances for stationery for Sheriff-Clerks. The Sheriff-Clerks were provided with stationery within strict limits except in the case of Orkney, Sutherland, and Shetland. He did not contend that this was a very large point, but he thought that when the clerks in all other counties received an allowance in that respect, the Lord Advocate might consider whether he could not see his way to making the practice uniform in all counties.

called attention to the want of residential accommodation for the Procurator Fiscal and Official Solicitor in Lochmaddy. At the present time the Sheriff was under threat of eviction, and the Fiscal had been evicted for years. He was compelled by law to reside in the district, but people who had taken him and the resident Solicitor in had been evicted. The Solicitor had to live in a boat, and the Fiscal was living over a Highland store. The landlord was king of the island and would not allow these officials to live in it. The only course that seemed to be open was to remove the court. There was, however, any amount of foreshore belonging to the Crown on which houses for these officials could be built, and they were perfectly willing to build them. He hoped that the Government would come to some kind of understanding with Sir John Orr, or provide a sufficient site on the foreshore where the Procurator Fiscal and the Solicitor could live in civilised conditions. If nothing could be done, the court should be moved down to Lochboisdale. He hoped that something would be done, so that this scandal in the "Western Hebrides might cease, and that the law might be carried out in that part of the country under the same conditions as in the rest of the country.

wished to draw attention to a matter which had excited a great deal of feeling amongst the farmers in his and the neighbouring constituency. He referred to the grievance of sheep-worrying. He wished to know what steps were being taken under the existing law to deal with this matter; and he would also like to ask the Lord Advocate, considering that the grievance had reached an acute stage, what special steps he would now take to deal with the matter. In the county of Banff the matter came recently before the County Council, and they went so far as to appoint a Special Committee to consider it. He was aware that a Select Committee was sitting to consider the law on the subject, but the deliberations of Committees took time, and something ought to be done at once to check this crying grievance. Almost all the mischief was done at night. The dogs came out at night and destroyed a great number of sheep, and it was very difficult to identify the dogs or their owners. On the occasion of the meeting of the County Council to which he had referred, one gentleman said that for three or four weeks six or eight sheep had been killed every alternate night, and another gentleman said that within his own experience one of the neighbouring farmers had actually lost half his sheep in this way during the last year. This was a very serious matter both for poor and well-to-do men, and the question was how the scandal was to be checked. One very natural remedy was that steps should be taken to get these dogs tied up. If the police took care to have all suspicious dogs tied up at night, that would do a great deal to check the evil. A great deal of mischief was done by dogs which ran after sheep in the day time—dogs following vehicles on the roads. They sometimes ran the sheep into quarries and other dangerous places, and when once sheep had been driven in this way it took a week for them to settle down and feed properly. What was wanted was that all stray dogs should be dealt with by the police. He was not sure that the police were aware of the power they had. Under the existing law any ownerless dog found wandering could be removed to the police station. There was a great uncertainty with regard to the law as to the killing of dogs addicted to sheep worrying. He believed there had been a number of contradictory decisions by the courts, and that the right to act against a dog was very restricted. Unless a dog was caught red-handed, or rather red-mouthed, nothing could be done. A man was not entitled to shoot a dog unless he believed that in that way he could save the sheep. There were various ways in which the matter could be dealt with. The Board of Agriculture had power to make regulations with regard to muzzling. If muzzling was wanted anywhere it was in these districts, where the dog was very apt to become as dangerous to the neighbourhood as the wolf.

, who was indistinctly heard, said the hon. Member for Sutherland had spoken in a commendatory strain of his action in regard to the appointment of Procurators-Fiscal and Sheriff-Clerks. While glad to have the hon. Member's approval, he wished to sound a note of warning in the matter He drew a great distinction between the two classes of officials, though in the case of both the object must be to get the best men for the public service. In regard to Procurators Fiscal, he was of opinion that, given an adequate salary, the Procurator Fiscal should not be allowed to engage in private practice, but even that rule must lead to the necessity of getting a good man, because, after all, the administration of justice, and the whole efficiency of his department depended upon being well served by the Procurators Fiscal, and unless a sufficient salary was provided them, in some cases they might be bound to take persons engaged in private practice. The case of Sheriff-Clerk was quite different. No restriction was needed to prevent him practising in his own court. What did it matter whether the Sheriff Clerk by himself or through a partner did a certain amount of conveyancing. Even if his client came into court the Sheriff Clerk had nothing to do with the determination of the case. Therefore he strongly held the view that in order to get the best men, it was well to allow the Sheriff Clerk to engage in private practice. But there, again, he did not want the rule to be made inflexible. In these appointments, the practical thing was to get the confidence of the public, and he would go against his own opinion in the matter if he was sure that the course he was taking would secure respect for the judicature. With regard to the delay in civil causes that was not a matter in which he had any practical jurisdiction at all. As to the difference that existed between the Sheriff and the Sheriff-Clerk, that was a question of the past. There had been a certain amount of friction, but through the good offices of the Secretary for Scotland, an arrangement had been made between the two dignitaries which would obviate friction in future years. Then the hon. Member spoke of the administration of justice at Lochmaddy. No doubt there was still a difficulty between the Procurator Fiscal and the proprietor, but he was not entitled to offer any judgment, for he had no powers in the matter. The general provision of official residences seemed to him rather an heroic remedy. They had been going on under the present system for a great many years, and except in the case of Lochmaddy, no one had ever known of a Procurator Fiscal or Sheriff-substitute failing to get a residence. The suggestion that a house should be put on the foreshore was not practicable. The foreshore was that portion of the shore whore the sea ebbs and flows, and an official residence there would be rather damp. With regard to the case in his own constituency, about which the hon. Member for Sutherland asked, that was also a matter on which he did not wish to make any pronouncement. So far as his opinion upon the administration of justice was concerned, he was all in favour of the Sheriff-substitute living on the spot, because the convenience of suitors was the thing that had to be studied. As to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Banffshire, it had no reference to the administration of justice. It was quite certain he could not prosecute a dog, and the only way in which the subject could be in order would be if it was urged that some people had been aiding and abetting their dogs to worry sheep and he had not prosecuted them. The hon. Member did not, however, suggest that. So far as the action of the police was concerned the hon. Member must remember that that question did not arise on this Vote but on that of the Secretary for Scotland. It was a very grave question, but at the same time there was no doubt—without throwing any doubt on the facts brought forward by the hon. Member—that there were such cases in other parts of Scotland. The Secretary for Scotland was at present making exhaustive inquiries of the chief constable to see what steps might be taken by the police to try to put a stop to this practice.

, asked to what extent the law officers might engage in private practice. He called attention to the fact that while the salary of the clerk to the Lord Advocate was £400, the salary of the clerk to the Solicitor General was only £100. The Scotch Votes were he thought as a rule economical. But he thought the clerk to the Solicitor General was paid far too little, and that his salary should be doubled. He pointed out that the duties of the Solicitor General were made a great deal more onerous by the Local Government Act. He thought it was a good system for one of the law officers to be in Scotland. He noticed with regard to the legal Secretary that his salary was £500, and that of course he did not consider too high. His expenses in London, however, were £180, while the amount paid to him for preparing Scotch Bills was £800. Therefore although the salary was nominally £500 it was really about £1,500. There were not many Scotch Bills passed through the House, this Session, the only Bill practically had been the Agricultural Bating Bill. There was, it was true, the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, but that was a Bill to correct a blunder of the draftsman in 1892, and which would therefore, he supposed, be paid for twice over. He did not object to £800 being paid for Scotch Bills, but if it was paid they ought at least to get a reasonable time of the House allotted to them so that they might pass the Bills into law. Another point was in regard to appropriations in aid. The actual amount received last year was about £42,000, but the amount was now estimated at £32,000. With regard to the case of Lochmaddy, the Sheriff-substitute was bound to be resident by law in the locality, and yet the landlord to whom the island belonged had evicted him, and practically the Sheriff-substitute had no house. He thought that was not a very satisfactory position, and that the Government might do well to consider the matter. No doubt it was only in regard to these extreme instances that the law required to be amended. He wished to direct the attention of the Lord Advocate to a special matter which he had brought before his notice in questions. He referred to the case of the eviction in Kirkintilloch, where a miner was evicted from his holding without any warrant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to a question, had said that it was inconceivable that there was no warrant for the eviction. He certainly thought it was a most extraordinary thing that an eviction should take place in Scotland without a legal warrant, and I the matter was one of very considerable importance to a great many miners throughout Scotland. The miner had occupied his house for six years, and when out of employment had received a warning to remove. It was admitted that in this particular case the house was let from week to week, and as he was continued in his employment be was under the impression that the warning away had been withdrawn. Before the eviction took place some dispute had arisen between the manager of the mine and the men, and then he got notice to remove his goods before 12 o'clock, and he was then forcibly turned out by the manager and two men into the street. Notice had previously been given by the manager to the police for them to be upon the spot in case of any disturbance taking place during the eviction. All these proceedings were taken without any legal warrant whatever. His contention was that under the law of Scotland a warning away did not give a right to anyone to displace a man by force from his holding. To justify such action a legal warrant must have been previously obtained. In his view, this case was one of considerable importance. If men went into another man's house and removed his furniture without warrant, that was such an illegal proceeding that the Lord Advocate ought to inquire into it on account of the principle which it involved. It was also a matter for inquiry whether the police were justified in acceding to the manager's request to assist in the eviction as far as their presence was concerned. There was another matter that he desired to bring-under the notice; of the Lord Advocate. He had put a question on Monday on the subject to the Lord Advocate, and he now desired to emphasise that question by again referring to it. It appeared that a young man had been charged with an indecent assault, and that on his being tried for the offence the jury had given a verdict of "Not proven." He did not desire to discuss the merits of the case, but the point he desired to bring under the attention of the Lord Advocate was the length of time (hat had elapsed between the commission of the alleged offence before any action was taken on the part of the prosecution.

said the answer to the first question of the hon. Member in reference to the salary and duties of the Lord Advocate was one for the Treasury. The duties of the office covered all business for the Crown and for Public Departments. Next, the hon. Member asked if there was any embargo upon private practice, and the answer was there was not. Then the hon. Member remarked upon the discrepancy between the salary of the Lord Advocate's clerk, £400, and that of the Solicitor General's clerk,£100. Of course, he had no wish to prevent the hon. Member taking such steps as he might think fit to raise the salary of the latter, but there could be no doubt that the Lord Advocate's clerk had a good deal more to do. When the salary attached to the office of Solicitor General was increased, the salary of the Solicitor General's clerk was raised from £73 10s. to £100. The last Member spoke of the Solicitor General not being in the House, and said this was not a grievance to him. It was, however, something of a grievance to the Lord Advocate. The hon. Member expressed a preference for the idea that the Solicitor General for Scotland should always be out of the House, but in that he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman, not only because of the advantage it would be in the conduct of Scotch business to have the assistance of another law officer, but because of the training presence in the House afforded. What a miserable condition would he have been in if he had to face the denunciatory forefinger of the hon. Gentleman without any previous experience. Next, the hon. Member called attention to the allowance of £800 in addition to the allowance of £500 to the Lord Advocate's secretary. The £800 was not paid to the Lord Advocate's secretary; it was paid in respect to the drafting of Bills, and simply distributed by the Lord Advocate's secretary among the particular persons who happened to draft the Bills. As a matter of fact, though the Lord Advocate's secretary might sometimes get some of the amount, there had been only one instance in modern times when he got the whole. In remarking on" this expenditure for drafting Bills, the hon. Member asked where were these Scotch Bills, and said that he only knew of one, the Rating Bill. But a great many Bills were drafted that did not pass, and one reason why more did not pass was because the hon. Member for Mid Lanark talked out the Bills in front and raised objection after 12 o'clock.

On public grounds.

said no doubt the hon. Member acted on public grounds; that he did so on private grounds was not suspected. But Bills had to be drafted, and when the work was done it had to be paid for. If more Bills were not passed, the hon. Member knew quite as much about the reasons for that as himself. As to the figures and items on page 65, the hon. Member had really solved his own conundrum; it was a simple arithmetical process. The next question of the hon. Gentleman was of more general importance, and had reference to cir cumstances attending the proceedings of a colliery owner to obtain possession of a cottage occupied by a miner. Upon that subject he had answered several questions from the hon. Member, and could not see that there was any grievance to complain of. The hon. Member had quoted one of the answers given to a supplementary question, and that answer was given on the assumption that the case was one of regular eviction under process, and in which there would be a warrant. But that did not turn out to be so. The owner wished to evict a man who had occupied the house as a condition of service—a common arrangement enough—and gave the man 40 days' notice to remove. Surely it was not a grievance that this notice was given instead of a week's notice? As time went on the miner again got work at the colliery, but he was not told that he could return to the house, and, in fact, he knew that it had been re-let. It was made a grievance that the man was turned out without process. Of course, a process of summary eviction meant a petition for ejectment, and the expenses would fall upon the parties. The proposition of the hon. Member came to this—that it was wrong for the man to leave the house without a warrant to compel him to leave it. The fact was the man left peaceably. No doubt the police were on the scene, but they were specially told by the Chief Constable that they were to take no part in the eviction, but that they were merely there to preserve order if a breach of the peace was threatened. The miner might have stayed in the house, and might have been subjected to the consequences and expenses of a petition of ejectment, but he went without that. There did not appear to be any grievance in the matter, and the action of the authorities could not be called in question. The last question of the hon. Member had reference to the delay between the informations and a certain prosecution, with the facts of which he was not acquainted, but no doubt on Monday information would be received to enable an answer to be given.

asked, was it to be the position of the law in Scotland that if a colliery owner was the owner of a dwelling-house, and the tenant did not remove at the time he was bound to remove, the owner could forthwith remove the tenant and his furniture, and it would not be a breach of the peace, and that, so far as the authorities were concerned, the man was not entitled to protection or redress? In these days, when important questions arose on mining matters and led to disputes, that would be a dangerous doctrine for the Lord Advocate to give countenance to. It was not a peaceable operation that was carried out; the man struggled, and did all he could to prevent removal. It was a dangerous doctrine to countenance that such things could be done without any warrant. The man was forcibly dispossessed against his own exertions to remain, and yet the Lord Advocate said that that was not a case which called for the interference of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman accused him of having blocked Scotch Bills. He was not aware of having done anything of the kind. The only Bill he spoke upon was the Housing of the Working Classes Bill. The only other Bill was the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, and he did not speak a word upon that at all. The Government brought in the Bill and they dropped the Bill. No one knew why they brought it in, and no one knew why they dropped it. His complaint was that if they paid £800 a year for drafting Bills, they should at least have some value for their money.

said he had listened carefully to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark in regard to the eviction of a miner, and he should say that it appeared to him to be a question for a civil action between citizens with which the time of Parliament should not have been taken up. He protested against disputes between private citizens being brought before the House, and Members of the Executive Government being asked to intervene in matters which were wholly outside their province. In regard to the appointment of Sheriff - Clerks and Procurator fiscals, he was glad to hear that the Lord Advocate drew a broad distinction between the two, for really their work lay in different spheres of administration. He thought it would be a bad thing to allow a Procurator-fiscal to engage in private practice in a district in which he conducted prosecutions; but when they required a Procurator-fiscal to give up his private practice they should give him some compensation in the shape of an increase of salary. It was different, however, in the case of Sheriff-Clerks. Their official duties never brought them into conflict with their private practice, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to his resolution to appoint the best man to the post of Sheriff-Clerk without regard to the question of private practice.

said that he had never heard a speech more out of place than the speech to which the Committee had just listened, especially as it came from a Scotch representative. This case of eviction had aroused the greatest interest in every mining centre in Scotland. The Scotch Members were petitioned to bring it before Parliament; it was brought before Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman, who represented a mining constituency, lectured the hon. Member for Mid Lanark—who had been 12 years in the House, while the hon. Gentleman had been there only one year—for having brought the matter forward. When the hon. Gentleman returned to his constituency he would find some miners there who would want an explanation for his censure of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark. The point involved in the case was not at all a question of notice. The point was that the man had been evicted without a warrant. The whole question in the recent coal strike hinged upon the power of the owners to turn miners out of their houses with the aid of the law. But here was a case in which there was no warrant at all, and in which, therefore, the law was broken. The Lord Advocate had not dealt with that particular point.

submitted that no breach of the criminal law was committed. The matter was entirely one for a civil Court.

said the facts had evidently been misrepresented, and he protested against being lectured as he had been by the hon. Member.

said that if the matter had been merely one of civil right he would not have brought it before the Committee, but it involved a criminal offence which was within the cognisance of the Lord Advocate. A tenant occupied a dwelling-house for six years; a master came down with six men and, without any legal warrant, told him to go; his furniture was turned into the street, and he was dispossessed against his will. He would have been within his legal right in resisting this by force. He could have shot the man. [Loud laughter.] It was not in the interest of peace or order that men should be driven to defend themselves in this way by physical force. ["Hear, hear!"] Vote agreed to. 6. £3,795, to complete the sum for Crofters' Commission—Agreed to.

said the educational year had been uneventful in Scotland in contradistinction to that in England, but it had been a year of steady progress. The grant asked for was £1,131,000, showing an increase over last year of £39,835, which was accounted for in this way: £18,000 odd was for day scholars and £10,000 odd for evening scholars, and £6,265 for fee grants. The total amount of the fee grant for the year was £303,609. The method of calculating the grant had been changed. It had now been placed on the basis the Scotch Education Department had always contended for of 10s. per head on the attendance, instead of, as hitherto, the 11–80ths of the sum allowed to England. Pending any further settlement of the pension question, an increase of £260 had been made in the Estimate for pensions, giving £4,885 in all for that purpose. Another feature of novelty was the grant for agricultural education, which, at the beginning of the financial year, was transferred to the Education Department, and upon that Vote there was an increase of £300. The attendance had increased by about 9,500. The total attendance was 587,931, there being a gratifying increase in the percentage of the older children. There had been enormous progress in the evening schools, the figures for 1895 being 45,487, as compared with 11,363 in 1890, 13,513 in 1891, 16,007 in 1892, 19,575 in 1893, and 32,934 in 1894. [Cheers.] In regard to free education, 97 '09 of the scholars were free, leaving only 2·91 who paid fees. Another matter in which there was a very satisfactory result was the question of the leaving certificates, in regard to which there had also been a very great increase, the total being 15,700 this year, as against 13,000 last year. He might mention that schemes had been received and approved of for all the burgh and county committees for the year 1895–96, and a new minute had been approved of by Parliament, under which the new committees were being elected to submit schemes for the present financial year. The chief feature of difference between that and the older minute was that, in order to induce local authorities to hand over the amount dealt with by them, there was a proposal to give them additional representation on the Committees.

moved to report progress on the ground that, as other business had to be taken at 11 o' clock, there was no time adequately to discuss such an important subject as Scotch education, to which they might give an hour the following day.

agreed to this proposal on the condition that certain other business should have precedence over the discussion on this Vote.

considered the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman a fair one.

complained that the Scotch Members had hardly been fairly treated in this matter. It was understood that they were to get a reasonable time for the discussion of Scotch Votes. As a matter of fact, the Votes did not come on until nine o' clock that night, so that they had only had two hours for discussion. He believed that they had only had a day altogether for the consideration of Scotch Estimates, and, at any rate, they had not had anything like a fair proportion of the time of the House for the discussion of Scotch business. Then, again, only the previous night, in order that hon. Members might get away at a quarter past two that morning, they were asked to pass, without discussion, 11 Votes.

No, it was seven.

said they had had the opportunity of discussing two Votes, which he did not think they had discussed at any inordinate length. He recognised that the arrangement which had been entered into must be carried out, but he hoped the First Lord might arrange that they should have some little time on Monday, say, for the purpose of making some remarks on this Education Vote.

said he did not think that they ought to be asked to take such an important Vote as this within 10 minutes of the hour when it was arranged the other business should be taken. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might fairly congratulate himself on the progress made to-day, because he got Votes which made up a very substantial amount indeed. When he kept in view the fact that so far he had only allowed one day and some three hours for the consideration of the Scotch Estimates, he really thought he should consent to the Motion to report progress.

said he could hardly make any complaint of the length of time taken up on Scotch Estimates, but the Leader of the Opposition had expressed the opinion that the offer he had made was a very fair one. They had got Monday up to 10 o'clock for Supply. They had got, if the House did not insist on dividing on all the unconsidered Votes, from 10 o'clock on Monday until one o'clock, or whatever hour the House chose, for Report of Supply, and they had until 10 o'clock on Tuesday for further Report of Supply. Therefore there might be many Votes which were never considered in Committee which might receive adequate discussion on Report. He would suggest that to-night hon. Gentlemen might give them the following Votes:—Class 2, No. 18, No. 22, No. 25, and No. 26; Class 3—No. 10; Class 4—No. 4, and No. 5; Class 6—

I think you have got enough.

Very well.

protested against this system of taking Votes. Many hon. Members had gone home under the impression that the whole of the night would be occupied with the Scotch Votes. But of the Votes mentioned by the Leader of the House that for the salaries and expenses of the House of Commons raised important questions, and he hoped it would not be taken to-night.

said he and his friends were anxious to meet as far as possible the reasonable demands made by the Leader of the House, but at the same time it was necessary to enforce the just right of Members to discuss Supply. The stress of public business was so great that last night they passed seven Votes without a word of discussion, and now they were asked to pass some 10 or 12 more in a like manner. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not take any Vote that was seriously objected to.

said he had not the least desire to press Votes which hon. Members had conscientious scruples to passing, without discussion.

said he had already objected to this Vote being taken without discussion. One matter he wished to raise was the dismissal of Mr. John Bull. [A laugh, and "That must be raised on the House of Lords Vote."] He thought it could be raised on this Vote. He, however, objected to the Vote being taken.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist. He had not put down the House of Lords Vote, because he understood there were some questions hon. Members wished to raise.

said there was an important question to be raised upon the Vote, and that was the way in which the officers of the House were being worked. If it was to be an established rule that the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule—

said that the hon. Gentleman could not enter upon such a question on this Vote.

wished to raise a question if the Leader of the House intended to insist on taking the Vote.

said he would not press the Vote if it was really opposed.

asked whether it would not be possible to have attached to the House an officer whose duty it would be to inform Members what business was in progress. [Laughter.]

said the whole arrangements of the House were under a Special Committee or commission consisting of the Speaker and high officers, and, therefore, he could make no promise. He would see, however, that the matter was mentioned to the Committee.