I merely wish to ask for information as to the business of the week, especially Wednesday, which, I believe, is as yet unassigned. But, possibly, in the absence of the Leader of the House, for a reason which we all deplore—

Except the Irish Members.

Mr. Speaker, I must call your attention to the observation just made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. When my right hon. friend said—

^* : To what hon. Member does the hon. Member refer?

The hon. Member for South Belfast, who never omits an opportunity of insulting Irish Members. When the right hon. Gentleman said the First Lord of the Treasury was absent for a reason we all regret—and we do all regret it—the hon. Member said "Except the Irish Members.'' That, Sir, is a great insult to us and to the man who is now under bereavement. Personally, opposed as I have been to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, I was the very first to write him a letter of sympathy in his sorrow. I must protest against this insult being applied to us.

^* : The hon. Member was not justified in making the observation, and I am sure he will withdraw it.

Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling at once. My reason for making the observation was the fact that all the questions on the Paper addressed to the Chief Secretary, who is absent for the same reason, were postponed.

I may say, Sir, that the reason those questions were postponed had nothing whatever to do with the absence of the Chief Secretary. We knew the right hon. Gentleman would be absent, and we regret the cause of his absence. We desired that the questions should be answered by him, who, we thought, had fuller knowledge of the facts. I do not know whether the Colonial Secretary is in a position to give us any information about the course of business.

I understand that Supply will be taken on Thursday and Friday, but, of course, the future progress of business will depend upon how far we get to-day. As to Wednesday, I am not able to make any statement in the absence of my right hon. friend.

This Vote has been deferred until the present late period of the session in order that we might have the Home Office Report in time to allow us to avail ourselves of the opportunity which the Leader of the House kindly promised to give us of discussing the labour policy of the administration of the year. Two years ago I ventured to move a reduction of the salary of the then Secretary of State on account of the great and avoidable delay which had taken place in the production of the Report, without which we are unable to discuss these things, because we have no information beyond that provided a year before. As a result of what occurred on that occasion the then Secretary of State made what we took to be a promise to the House, and that promise has not been kept this year. When the reduction was actually moved the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to make the promise, but shortly afterwards—on the 4th August, 1899—he volunteered the promise in these words— in order to allow the printing of the illustrations which accompany it. There are some horrible pictures of the lungs of persons dead of dangerous diseases, and I venture to say that these illustrations, the preparation and printing of which is, of course, costly and slow, are not necessary to the Report. They are very important, no doubt, for the technical advisers of the Government, but with the exception of one or two hon. Members they are practically useless to the House generally, and it is a great pity if the Report has been delayed for the sole purpose of bringing in these illustrations. We have now a new Secretary of State, a man of business who, I hope, will feel, with the Committee generally, that it is necessary for us to have this Report earlier in future years. We hope that he will renew personally the promise made by his predecessor—kept for one year but broken in the present twelve months—and that henceforward we shall have the Report at a much earlier period of the session.

Now, Sir, the Report itself is an extremely interesting one, and probably the most valuable that has ever been laid before this House. We ought to congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Reports are so good when those at the head of the office have to some extent been engaged in the preparation of legislation likely soon to occupy the attention of the House. The Reports of the individual inspectors are admirable. I only wish the Committee were in a position to pay attention to the Reports, and to press on the Government the necessity of acting on them and of carrying out the views so ably laid before Parliament and the country. I shall try to keep very strictly within the rules of order by distinguishing most carefully between legislation and administration. I will endeavour not to say a word which concerns legislation. Of course there are some subjects discussed in this Report which are also subjects of legislative proposals by the Government, and of them I may have to mention one or two. But there have been defects in administration in the past which are entirely outside the question of legislation. There is the Report contained in the Report of the Chief Secretary of Factories on the subject of the special exemption of the fish trade generally. But we are not concerned with what is exempted, because exemption of course is a matter of legislation, and that exemption is varied in the Bill about to be laid before Parliament. What I complain even more strongly of now than before is that there has been in the Home Office an absence of complete acting on the legislation which it already possesses, and that it has allowed the fish trade in all its branches to be exempt from inspection and to be carried on under revolting conditions which it ought to have prevented. If it had given effect to the exemption in what I think is only one process it would have been better, but it has allowed it to be extended to several processes in the trade. On a recent occasion my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Great Yarmouth defended that place in particular on the ground that it was impossible that the allegations which had been made with regard to the fish trade there could be true. The information on which we relied was obtained by the Research Committee of the Christian Social Union—by a committee of ladies who were sent round the coast for the purpose, and the revelations they made were disgusting, showing the existence of a condition of things which it should be the duty of the Home Office to prevent. In the Report which has just been laid before Parliament we find absolute confirmation by the inspectors of the Home Office of the allegations made by these ladies, and I will ask the attention of the Committee while I read a few extracts there from. The inspector says— herrings. The use of ice has become more general, steamships for bringing in the fish are also more generally used, and then again cold storage has been widely adopted. I complain that the exemption has not been rigidly construed, and I hope that in the future the Home Office will see that the limits are adhered to.

The next subject I want to bring before the Committee is one of three or four which in recent years we have strongly pressed with regard to the administration of the Home Office. In regard to one or two of these we have in late years succeeded in making a step in advance. But the subject of lead poisoning in the china and earthenware trade is one which arouses great anxiety, and with good reason. The Home Office have some right to pride themselves on a certain improvement in the figures, which show a decrease in the number of cases of lead poisoning in this trade. The decrease is more considerable in the slighter cases than in the serious ones. I do not wish to-day to press the point which I have had to press on previous occasions, namely, how far that improvement is due to the non-reporting of cases. There is, in many of the lead cases, a difference of opinion on the part of medical men; there is, too, an impression in the minds of some of the workers, which may or may not be erroneous, that a good many medical men practising in the Potteries are inclined to ascribe these cases of lead poisoning to other causes than plumbism. There is a corresponding impression in the minds of some of the manufacturers that some medical men are inclined to ascribe to plumbism cases which are due to other causes. It is impossible for any of us to be certain on these points, and while I may have my own impression that some of the improvement is due to the non-reporting of cases, the hon. Member opposite, who represents the Potteries district, may share the view of the manufacturers that that is not the case. That is a matter, however, on which neither of us can prove our case. Last year I asked as to some non-reported cases—cases in which the doctor absolutely responsible did not allege the presence of lead, although specialists who were concerned in the investigation of such cases did. There is undoubtedly, as may be seen by a perusal of the Reports of the inspectors for the Potteries district, a tendency to minimise the extent of the sufferings in this industry. For instance, there is the lamentable fact that at the time of the excitement in the public mind with regard to poisoning from beer last winter the employers did not hesitate, at their dinners, to allude to beer poisoning as accounting for cases which were ascribed to plumbism to a large extent in the Potteries. That shows the existence of the spirit to attribute them to other causes. But in my opinion the improvement is mainly accounted for by the general use of the fan in decorative purposes, pressed by us on the Home Office, adopted by them, and insisted upon by the inspectors generally in all dusty trades. It is an immense gain, and has considerably minimised the suffering in the less important cases. The suffering in the dipping trade is very serious still. Now, the remedy of the manufacturers is suspension, but it has never been a favourite remedy with many of us who have pressed this matter on the attention of the House. There has, in fact, been a suspension of judgment on our part in regard to it. It is obviously not the best operation, because it is a policy which tends to ruin and starve the worker in the pottery districts. Work in safe processes means a reduction of the wages of skilled workers and the loss of the means of livelihood. These districts are one-trade districts, and there is not a sufficiency of other trades in which people who have been suspended can find employment. Those other trades are already overcrowded, and consequently the workers are subjected to an immense reduction of wages. According to the employers we ought to have no plumbism at all, as it ought really to have been extinguished by the policy of suspension, at all events among the women and children. The employers say that they have been extraordinarily strict, and that everyone with the slightest tendency to lead poisoning, or with a constitution likely to incur it, is now suspended. And yet an enormous amount of plumbism continues even among women and young persons. This trade is one which differs from all other trades, except perhaps one in which we have completely succeeded, I refer to the match trade and phosphorous poisoning. There is a perfect and officially admitted remedy for this lead poisoning in the china and earthenware trade. The Home Office, as advised by its experts, say that a certain remedy exists which will put an end to plumbism, and they have advised that it be tried. The manufacturers, however, complain that they are suffering from severe foreign competition, and that we are hampering them by desiring to put further restrictions upon their trade in the interests of the public health. But as far as Germany is concerned that argument does not hold good, because Germany, which is a competitor, has, in fact, by different steps from those taken here, but still by very effective steps, reduced plumbism more rapidly than we have. That is a fact beyond all doubt. There is a clear illustration of it in the Factory Report which has just been presented. On page 216 of that report you will find the views of the Birmingham inspector on plumbism. He says incidentally with regard to the disuse of lead that there— the lead trade in the same way as it did with the match trade. In Germany they have made enormous progress with a remedy of a different class to that which we propose. My hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire, when the Compensation Act was under discussion in this House, moved an Amendment the object of which was to place deaths from dangerous diseases incurred in the course of employment on the same footing as deaths from accidents. In Germany the heavy compensation which has to be paid by the manufacturers to the victims of lead poisoning has been the cause of enormous improvements being made by themselves for the sake of their own pockets. They also have in Germany a special law against the sale of any goods for domestic use which, when tested, are found to contain volatile lead, and these two things together have almost stamped out plumbism in Germany. Our own experts here prefer a different class of remedy, which they suggest is better than the German policy. Doctor Thorpe, whose reports have been laid before Parliament, has suggested the laying down of a standard of frit for the lead trade. The manufacturers prefer the plan of suspension, but that is somewhat unjust to the working class and, if possible, we ought to avoid it. The Home Office evidently think it is possible to avoid it by acting on the advice of their inspectors, and therefore it is proposed to try the rival plan of a standard for frit The suspension is objectionable for reasons which possibly the hon. Member for Berwickshire may mention. Undoubtedly the workers complain of it because of the conditions under which the examination itself is enforced. The matter is one which involves close inquiry. Apart from that there is the enormous difficulty of suspending people from work in a well-paid employment, the only employment which they can obtain in a district with a single trade. As the new rules have had to wait so long for the arbitration on them, I should have preferred to have waited a little longer, so that we might have known what principles the Government were going to introduce in their legislation. I complain, however, that the Home Office has been slow in acting administratively on the present law. The new rules were proposed in a circular dated December, 1899. There was a fresh circular in August, 1900, which did not advance matters much further. Then came the special rules, which were good enough rules, and on which conference after conference was held with the manufacturers up to February last. The arbitration on them has been postponed until very late in the present year, so that the rules will not come into force for a considerable period yet. One result of the conferences which have been held is, I am afraid, that our case has been given away as far as concerns the arbitration which is coming upon us. The employers now know what the Home Secretary is prepared to give them as a result of the arbitration. That seems to put us in a bad position. It is clear that it is intended to enforce a standard of insolubility. The 1 per cent. for white and cream-coloured articles which the Home Office advisers appear to think sufficient is to be increased to 2 per cent. in order to cover all possible cases of hardship. The 2 per cent. with a corresponding figure for coloured articles, may, however, be lost to us as a result of the arbitration. I propose to move a reduction of the salary of the Home Secretary by £100, partly as a protest against the non-enforcement of the law, partly on the ground of the exemption with regard to the fish-curing trade, and partly because of the unjustifiable delay of the Home Office in producing the Annual Report.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Secretary of State."—( Sir Charles Dilke. )

desired to say a word or two to the Committee with regard to the proposed new rules which the Secretary of State had issued. The matter was one of deep importance as far as the Potteries were concerned. But he would warn the Home Secretary not to go too far with these regulations, or, however good his intentions might be, he would kill the trade in the Potteries altogether. Rule 2 provided that only 2 per cent. of lead should be allowed to be used in glazing. He had a copy of a Staffordshire Sentinel of 16th August, and in an article the writer said of the new rules—

"The first of them requires that the lead must, after 1st January next, in every case be 'fritted'—a process that renders it much less injurious, and which the general body of manufacturers agree can be done without any serious detriment or inconvenience."

Dealing with Rule 2 the writer continued—

"The objectionable part of this rule is found in the restriction to 2 per cent. of lead. The processes scheduled in Rule 1 include colour-dusting, colour-blowing, and ground-laying, and none of the colours used (with the exception of four) can be made with so low a percentage of lead as that prescribed. In fact, some of the colours contain as much as 60 per cent. of lead, and are absolutely useless with a lower proportion.

"These colours are exported in considerable quantities by English colour-makers to Germany, France, America, and even to the Antipodes; and are used by our competitors without any restrictive Government regulations. They (the foreign manufacturers) will flood our markets with ware decorated in colours our home manufacturers cannot touch, because a paternal Government at the bidding of meddling women prohibits them, and the position thus created must prove most disastrous to the English producers. The Government before insisting upon the proposed maximum of lead—a standard so low as to render the manufacturer subject to serious losses in spoiled ware, and also to seriously cripple the decorative processes—might insist upon the adoption (for a specified period as a test) of the Use of dilute sulphuric acid by the workers in the lead processes. It is largely used in Germany, where, as the reports tell us, lead poisoning is almost unknown; and it has been tried at one place in Longton with the best possible results. It is a well-known preventive of lead poisoning.

"Apart from the rule specified there is little in the draft rules that the manufacturers cannot comply with, though it will be at, in some cases, considerable expense and some friction and general disturbance. If, however, Rule 2 is persisted in there will be no need for rules, as the trade will be killed."

The Secretary of the Manufacturers' Committee, reporting on the new rules, complained that, for the first time in the history of the Potteries, English manufacturers were asked to accept conditions applied to no other potteries in the world, and the enforcement of which might have most disastrous consequences. In a former Report, Professor Oliver stated that the percentage should be 12 per cent. If that were desirable only a few years ago, it seemed rather strange that Dr. Thorpe should now want 2 per cent. adopted. Dr. Thorpe seemed to be proceeding from step to step in the matter. He should like to quote the opinion of Dr. Prendergast, who certainly could not be said to be prejudiced in favour of the manufacturers, as his opinion had often been quoted against trade contentions. Dr. Prendergast, even in his wildest dreams, and he had a great many, never went below 10 per cent., and now Dr. Thorpe calmly asked manufacturers to accept 2 per cent. Dr. Thorpe was really aiming at the abolition of lead in glaze altogether, but the Committee should look the position frankly in the face. Hon. Members should know that manufacturers were not able to rely entirely on a leadless glaze. It was no new question; in fact, it was a very old question, because for many years manufacturers had been trying their hardest to find a leadless glaze, but without success. About the year 1820 such a glaze was supposed to have been produced, and a gentleman received a gold medal for the invention; but it had never been found to be satisfactory. Many other similar glazes had also been tried, but none of them were in use at the present day. Various amiable philanthropists appeared to think that a so-called leadless glaze did not contain any lead. As a matter of fact, a great number of leadless glazes did contain a large amount of lead.

^* said that leadless glaze had been tested with satisfactory results, the traces of lead which were found being less than 1 per cent.

said that he had some leadless glazed articles tested a short time ago by a gentleman of experience who did not arrive at the conclusion stated by the right hon. Baronet. The great difficulty with reference to leadless glaze was that it could not be got to flow properly. It could be used within certain limits, but if an oven full of ware were turned out, a large proportion of the articles would be found to be unsatisfactory, and that made all the difference between commercial loss and commercial profit. No manufacturer so far as he knew, had ever succeeded in turning out a whole oven full of leadless glaze ware; when that had been done, then he would say that the difficulty had been surmounted. Up to the present time it had not been done. The Home Office relied entirely in the matter on their expert, Dr. Thorpe. He had no doubt that Dr. Thorpe was a gentleman of high scientific attainments, hut he must point out that Dr. Thorpe was not a practical man, and was not a commercial man, and therefore he ought not to be relied on altogether. He would not refer to his Report, which was written in extremely technical language—in fact, too technical he believed for even the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. His right hon. friend relied entirely on Dr. Thorpe, but if he could show that Dr. Thorpe was guilty of a serious error, perhaps his right hon. friend would have less faith in him. Every practical potter knew that the solubility of metals would be effected by a certain process. That was a complete surprise to Dr. Thorpe. He himself knew the gentleman, who had carried out experiments for Dr. Thorpe, and they actually proved that the solubility of the metals employed was effected to the extent of 50 per cent. If a scientific expert made a blunder of 50 per cent. in such a matter, was he a gentleman on whom the Home Office could rely? If Dr. Thorpe knew all about the pottery trade, why did he not supply manufacturers with a formula for leadless glaze? That would be a satisfactory way of testing his competence to deal with the matter. He should like to go further, and suggest to the Home Office, if they were really in earnest, to take a factory themselves and work it for twelve months, and show manufacturers how their trade should be carried on. He was sure that the manufacturers would be delighted. So far as Dr. Thorpe was concerned he was trying to teach other people something of which he himself had not the slightest notion.

He now wished to refer briefly to the subject of foreign competition. The only way in which manufacturers had been able to maintain themselves against foreign competition was by the excellence of their ware, and if the Home Office was going to interfere with them in the manner proposed it would be impossible for them to continue to produce ware of such an excellent quality as at present. With regard to ware imported from other countries, he wished to know what regulations the Home Office were going to make in order to prevent manufacturers abroad exporting ware to this country with any amount of lead in it. How were they going to prevent that? The manufacturers had a right to say, if the Home Office were going to stop them using lead in their manufacture, that foreign manufacturers should not be allowed to send over goods as heavy with lead as they could possibly be. A few months ago he asked a question on the subject, and the Home Secretary informed him that it was not in his Department. The President of the Board of Trade gave a similar reply, and not a single Minister was able to answer what he considered to be a very simple question. It seemed to him that the Home Office did not understand the difficulties which the new rules would create. Ever since the rules of 1898 came into operation, the number of plumbism in the pottery trade had diminished from year to year. He would refer to two local institutions. At the North Staffordshire Infirmary there were only four male and seven female cases. In the North Staffordshire Provident Association a large number of general cases were treated. In 1900 there were ninety-eight cases of rheumatism and gout, 125 cases of bronchitis and tonsilitis, 107 cases of sprains and injuries, and only thirteen cases of plumbism. That was very significant. He himself had moved for a Return of the official figures from January, 1898, to December, 1900. In 1898 there were 458 cases of lead poisoning; in 1899, 249; and last year only 200 in the earthenware and china industry. That was a most gratifying diminution. How did those figures compare with lead poisoning in other trades? In 1898 there were 819 cases in other trades, as against 457 in the earthenware and china industry; in 1898 there were 1,009, as against 249; and last year there were 858 cases, as compared with 200; and in addition to last year's total in other trades there were 199 cases of house painters not under the Factory and Workshop Acts. It was not, therefore, the china and earthenware trade that only ought to be looked into by the Home Office. Other trades should also be looked into. The figures for April last, which were the latest available, showed that there were eight cases of lead poisoning in the china and earthen- ware trade, twenty cases in white lead, works, and eighteen cases among house painters, the latter including seven, deaths. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean asked a question of the Home Secretary on the 18th May with reference to the latest Return. The Home Secretary replied— were kept as well as possible. Thirdly, lead was one of the dearest ingredients which the manufacturer used at the present time, and it was to his interest to use as little as possible of it. Mr. Walmsley in his report stated that most of the important points under the rules of 1898 had been carried out. The manufacturers had also associated them selves with the institution of electric baths for the treatment of persons suffering from lead poisoning, which were started by the Duchess of Sutherland. Those were excellent institutions, and persons had been able to resort to them when they exhibited the first symptoms of lead poisoning. His view was that no new rules whatever were required at the present time. The trade was already over weighted with them. If the rules of 1898 were carried out there was no necessity for any further provisions. He would quote an impartial authority on that matter, namely, a novel, "The Frobishers," the main element in the story turning on the lead industry. On page 166 it was stated— to speak on behalf of the manufacturers in the House of Commons, but that he had not said half enough. This was no time to impose new rules upon manufacturers; trade was extremely bad, prices were low, and we were suffering from very keen competition both from home and abroad. From all parts of the Continent we had goods dumped down at our very doors, and that surely was not the time to handicap the potteries with these unjust requirements. Both masters and workmen were prepared to found their views upon the wisdom and experience of the past, rather than trust to the experimental authority of Dr. Thorpe, who, they believed, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman, was doing his best to drive out of this country by great and excessive interference one of the greatest and best of our native industries.

^* thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was to be congratulated for not having been swept away either by the tornado of the right hon. Member for East Fife or the violence of his own language. The hon. Member had thought fit to make a very strong attack against that excellent servant of the State, Dr. Thorpe. Dr. Thorpe, after having gone carefully and elaborately into the whole question, had come to the conclusion that it was feasible for the British manufacturer to bring himself up to the level of manufacturers abroad, who were themselves subject to the most stringent regulations, and who, in nine cases out of ten, were able to glaze their ware with a glaze which did not contain more than 2 per cent. of soluble lead. The hon. Member had spoken of 2 per cent. of soluble lead as if that was the whole amount of lead which the glaze could contain under the new rule, but that was not the case. It was perfectly possible under the rule now going to arbitration to prepare a glaze which would contain 10, 15, or 20 per cent. of lead, but still containing only 2 per cent. of soluble lead after it had been fritted. The hon. Member had asked why Dr. Thorpe did not produce a formula; Dr. Thorpe had produced several formulae, as the hon. Gentleman would see if he looked at the Report.

said his point was that a glaze which would stand the test of the laboratory might not stand the test of practical experience.

^* said that it was generally true to say that if a thing could be produced in a laboratory it could be produced commercially. Such a thing was conceivable. Let the hon. Member look at Sir Kenelm Digby's circular letter, where it is expressly stated that many of the sample glazes forwarded to the Government laboratory came within the proposed standard. The hon. Gentleman had then proceeded to quote cases of lead-poisoning in the potteries, and had rejoiced in the diminution of them, but the hon. Member was not responsible for that. At every step that had been taken to revise the standard and lessen this evil the hon. Member was the man who came forward and said the trade must not be over weighted and restricted. If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been guided by the hon. Member for Stoke there would have been no special rules and no diminution in lead-poisoning. It was men like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, the hon. Member for Battersea, and others who stood out to put an end to the scandalous state of things which used to exist. He desired to associate himself with the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and his staff upon the admirable Report which had been issued. It was a very voluminous document, and it had been impossible to master all the details of it, but he would just like to refer to the report of the medical inspector dealing with lead-poisoning. He noticed that there had been a general diminution in lead-poisoning, but the fact that he desired to draw attention to was that, whereas there had been this diminution in lead-poisoning generally, there had been an increase in three trades—coach-making, electric accumulator making, and shipbuilding. He would like to know whether that apparent increase was due to better reporting. Although there was a decrease in lead-poisoning in the white lead trade, as compared with last year, there was an increase from 1898, he noticed that there was in the case of two firms a very large number of cases. It seemed a strange thing that there should be so much lead-poisoning in these two factories, though it might be due to the number of casual workers employed. He also desired to call attention to the cases of lead-poisoning in printing offices. In the printing trade, though there was a slight diminution, seventeen cases had been reported, of which two were fatal, and two cases of saturnine encephalopathy, one of which was fatal, and there was one case of paralysis. Cases of lead-poisoning in printing offices were ascribed in the Report not only to the habit which compositors had of putting type into their mouths, but also to the taking of meals in the offices. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that he would do all in his power to insist upon meals being taken in a separate room provided for that purpose. He also wished to direct attention to the extraordinary number of deaths resulting from diseases of the pulmonary system in the ganister mines. They were, no doubt, due to the minute particles of ganister which were taken into the lungs. Ganister is used for lining the converters in the Bessemer steel process; but the mortality from phthisis among the miners was ten times as great as among the general population in corresponding cases. As that was a new matter he desired merely to direct attention to it in order that, when the right hon. Gentleman had more leisure, he might be able to make some rules and regulations to deal with it.

The only other point to which he wished to refer was a point in the administration of the existing Act. He desired to know what steps were being taken by the Home Secretary to enforce an old section of the existing law. Section 41, which gave the right hon. Gentleman power to require that children in workshops should be certified by the certifying surgeon as being fit to be so employed. It was the general opinion of the certifying surgeons that workshops were as much in need of inspection as factories, and children should not be employed in them unless certified by the certifying surgeon; and he drew attention to the fact that the only power the right hon. Gentleman had in this matter was the power given under the 41st section of the principal Act. He desired to call attention to the very interesting report made by one of the lady inspectors with regard to this matter, Miss Paterson, who had conducted an inquiry into the reason for the rejection of children in factories and the results of this rejection. That lady had only been able to trace five cases of rejection to subsequent employment in workshops, but she stated in her report that— hon. Gentleman had had power to prevent that being done, but there would be nothing to prevent that child going to a clothing workshop or to a dressmaker's or a laundry. He was glad such an excellent report had been furnished, but in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question, seemed to foreshadow, he wished to say that he hoped it would be possible to increase the establishment of the factory inspectors' department, and, above all, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to establish permanently a lady inspector in the Potteries district. That was a matter which had long been pressed for, but had not yet been granted, although a similar position which had been given to Miss Deane, whose temporary withdrawal they all deplored, had been an unqualified success. But Miss Deane's mission to South Africa was as much a subject for congratulation to the Colonial Office as of commiseration with the Home Office. In conclusion, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to put vigorous measures into force with regard to the various matters to which reference had been made.

desired to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to the enormous increase in the number of industrial accidents during the last three or four years. He congratulated the Department and the permanent officials on the improvement in the size and character of the annual report, and in the method of its compilation. But the greater clearness of the statistics only brought home the more plainly the regrettable increase in fatal and non-fatal accidents. In 1895 there were 455 fatal accidents in factories and workshops; in 1896, the number had increased to 596; in 1897, 658; in 1898, 727; in 1899, 871; and in 1900, 1,045. That was a condition of things which called for very drastic supervision on the part of the Home Office. Such figures should suggest to persons who thought these were days of too much factory inspection and needless supervision that there was still scope for the employment of more factory inspectors, and the imposition of heavier penalties on employers, and, if necessary, on the men who contributed to this ghastly total of accidents. In all phases of industry in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales there were, in 1897, 4,262 men killed; in 1900, the number had jumped to 4,823. The figures for the latter year were incomplete, but over the four years there was an increase of about 800 fatal accidents. According to the Report of 1900, as compared with 1899, the fatal accidents to operatives had increased by 19 per cent., to railway men by 13 per cent., and to miners by 8 per cent.; while the initial figures for 1901 were even worse. With these facts before them, the House of Commons, and especially the Home Office, should not, by the criticism of technical journals or of certain Members of Parliament, who thought factory inspection was going too far, be turned from their duty of endeavouring to remove the causes of, accidents. Every year the number of men who met their death while engaged in industry was equal to the number of men who had been killed by bullet or had died from wounds in twenty-two months in South Africa. Surely that fact should cause Parliament to consider whether they could not still further protect the industrial workers of the country. With regard to the textile industry, the aggregate of men, women, and children killed was relatively small, but even there the number had jumped from fifty-two in 1899 to seventy in 1900, an increase of 36 per cent.; and in the cotton industry in the same years the number had gone up from twenty-four to forty-one, or an increase of 70 per cent. That was a condition of things which should induce the Home Secretary to refuse to allow children and young people, and if possible adults, to clean machinery in motion at all.

Passing to the non-fatal accidents certified by the surgeons, if he might be allowed to perpetrate a bull, he would say that many of such accidents were worse to those whom they befel than a fatal accident would be, because they frequently meant the loss of both hands, or permanent mutilation, that kept the sufferers in perpetual misery during the remainder of life. In 1899 the number of non-fatal accidents was 4,332; in 1900, 4,647, an increase of 7 per cent.; while the numbers reported to inspectors only were 1,719 in 1899, and 1,960 in,1900, an increase of 14 per cent. As to the opinion of the experts on the causes of the accidents, Mr. Crabtree, the inspector for the Oldham district, stated at page 287 of the Report—

^* : Mr. Crabtree does not deal with cleaning machinery in motion at all.

I know he does not, but the quotation does. He states—

"… accidents may be reduced by 50 per cent. The fact is that hands are called upon to clean near revolving cog wheels."

^* : "Near."

said that there would be no danger if the machinery was stopped. The danger occurred only when hands were set to clean— persons responsible would take the advice of the Home Office and fence the cogwheels and generally put up guards.

He was glad to see that the tale of lead-poisoning was immeasurably better this year than last, and he believed the diminution from 1,258 cases in 1899 to 1,058 in 1900 was in no small degree due to the vigilance of the Home Office and the supervision of the factory inspectors. It was a standing incentive to the Home Office to disregard the criticism levelled at it from certain quarters during the last two years, and to go on eliminating lead-poisoning as rapidly as possible. The mere fact that in one year the cases had been reduced by practically 20 per cent. showed that the adverse criticism was not justified. He sincerely trusted the Home Office would not weary in well doing, but would bring yet further pressure to bear on the employers, so that this year there would be a considerable improvement even as compared with 1900.

In conjunction with other Members of Parliament he had on various occasions referred to the needlessly large number of fatal accidents in connection with docks, warehouses, and riverside work. He was glad to say that at last the number of dock accidents was diminishing, and the 103 of last year had dropped to sixty-eight. That was a remarkable decrease, and a large proportion of it was due, he believed, to the circulation by the Home Office to every dock, wharf, and warehouse owner of a copy of the excellent Report that Mr. Maitland and Mr. Grant made last year. That Report must have brought home to the dock and wharf owners the unwisdom of allowing their men to be killed or injured as they had previously been, and the Home Office should follow up the circulation of that Report by insisting upon its recommendations being carried into effect as soon as possible. If that were done, he predicted that the number of accidents would drop from sixty-eight to thirty-five or forty. As to the technical appliances suggested by that Report, it was the general opinion of practical stevedores, dockers, and dock labourers, and the best dock owners, that there had never been a Report issued showing such close practical technical acquaintance with defective gear, followed by such excellent suggestions. The practicality of the suggestions was evidenced by the way in which both fatal and non-fatal accidents had diminished.

A further point he desired to refer to was in connection with order in the streets of London. He commended to the attention of the Home Secretary the drastic criticisms made by Sir Edward Clarke at a recent conference in London as to the way in which the police authorities did not do their duty in regard to certain matters The particular point to which he desired to refer was concerning all-night coffee stalls. There were about 1,200 of these stalls, and the number was rapidly increasing Various authorities, including vestries and policemen, whom he had consulted, were of opinion that certainly 50 per cent. did not meet a legitimate want, and should be done away with. He believed that from 300 to 400 at certain well-defined places, such as markets, railway stations, and points where workmen chiefly congregated, would be sufficient to meet the night and early morning demands. Parenthetically, he might say there was less need now for such stalls, because within the last four or five years all-night services of trains and trams had been started, thus removing the necessity for night-workers and others to hang about the streets waiting for means to reach, their homes, and the consequent need for refreshments. These coffee stalls numbered 1,200, and every night there could be seen congregated around each one of them twenty, thirty, and forty people. He was a practical man, and he took his "bike" on Saturday night at a quarter to twelve so that he might gather some evidence on this subject which should be fresh, and he got home at a quarter to four on Sunday morning. He could assure the Committee that many of these coffee stalls were surrounded by thirty or forty young people, who would be described by the "yellow press" as larrikins and hooligans. At one stall a lot of these young men, from sixteen to twenty-four years of age or so, were fighting, and obviously the one policeman on point duty could not cope with them. These coffee stalls were increasing, and many people thought that they ought to be licensed where they are necessary. The worst of the stalls were the rendezvous for prostitutes and thieves, and in some cases, he was informed, they were agencies for receiving stolen property. One of the smartest detectives, who had now left the force, had told him that it was not an infrequent thing at some of these stalls for a watch to be found in the midst of 2lbs. of margarine. He ventured to say that these coffee stalls ought to be kept by reputable persons, and ought not to be the rendezvous of thieves and prostitutes. Immediately the public houses closed, half-drunken men, turned out into the streets, would congregate round these coffee stalls, and became an intolerable nuisance till three or four o'clock in the morning. A police inspector had told him that there was no need for these coffee stalls being kept open till two o'clock in the morning. It was between ten at night and two in the morning that these disorderly scenes occurred. There had been in one year many eases of violent assault; a policeman met his death at half-past one o'clock in the morning at a coffee stall in White-chapel, and a woman had been murdered in a coffee-stall row at Pentonville. In fact, there had been one case of manslaughter and three of murder in connection with these coffee stalls in the past few months, and that was quite sufficient to justify vigorous action. He appealed to the Home Secretary to consult with the Chief Commissioner of Police and the local authorities on this matter. He was perfectly satisfied that there was no need in London for more than 300 of these coffee stalls, and that all the legitimate wants of these places of refreshment would be conceded if they were not permitted to be open until three o'clock a.m. There were not much fewer than 6,000 policemen on duty during the dead watches of the night in London, and he could testify to the excellent way in which they discharged their arduous duty, exposed as they were very frequently to cold and wet, and the probability of assault. Their life was not indeed a happy one; and quite 15 per cent. of the effective night watch were taken from their legitimate duty to watch these coffee stalls. He did not ask that all the stalls should be suppressed, but the privilege given by the police for opening these coffee stalls in many cases had been scandalously abused, and they should either be licensed or kept by reputable persons.

^* said that in the Standing Committee to which the Factories and Workshops Bill had been referred he had brought up the question of the necessity of limiting the number of hours in which women and children were employed in fruit-preserving factories. The women and children were frequently transferred from one part of the factory to another in order to defeat the Act; and in some cases these people had been employed for seven, eight, and nine consecutive days, including two Sundays. He had proposed an Amendment on the Bill in Committee with the object of rectifying abuses which had often been pointed out, which, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been unable to accept; but the right hon. Gentleman had said he would introduce the following words in place of his Amendment in regard to the fruit-preserving factories:—"Provided that this exemption shall be subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by Order made in accordance with Section 65 of the principal Act. "The right hon. Gentleman in making this concession had said that he knew of cases in which fruit had been kept for a considerable period without any attempt to preserve it. The effect of such practice was obviously to produce undue pressure upon the workers. He hoped before the session closed the Order suggested by the Home Secretary would be issued. This was the time of year when excessive pressure was brought to bear in the fruit-preserving factories. He did not want to hamper legitimate trade, but at the same time he thought the House must feel the obligation to protect the classes in the community who were the least able to protect themselves, and those for whom he was specially pleading were young persons and children.

Passing from that point, he wished to direct attention to the large number of accidents which occurred in these factories. He had lately seen three cases reported; one young woman had lost her thumb and her first finger, another had lost three fingers, and a third had lost four fingers. The effect of these accidents was to make these people cripples for life, and lose the power of earning their living. He contended that it was the duty of the Legislature to take every legitimate means to prevent these accidents. It was said that such accidents would not occur if the people took care of themselves; but the legislature should provide that these young persons were not kept at work during such a large number of hours that they lost all power of self-control. He wished to draw the attention of the Home Secretary and of the Committee to a report of the principal lady inspector of factories. In that report the lady said classes were themselves, at that very work, enduring the same over-pressure. He thought that was unworthy of a great Department. He hoped his right hon. friend would look into the matter, and see whether he could not add to the number of lady inspectors, and also properly remunerate their secretaries and assistants. Lady inspectors were of the greatest value, especially in connection with the work of women and children.

^* said that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean had taken a great interest in the fishing industry, but he should be glad if the right hon. Baronet would take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Battersea and. investigate that industry on the spot. The conditions prevailing in the herring industry were very simple. The season lasted about two months, except at Great Yarmouth, where it lasted about three; and without doubt the fishermen and others engaged had a great deal to do in a very short time. Speaking of Aberdeenshire, the fishermen went out in the morning, but had to return every day in order to get the price they required for their fish. It might be late at night on their arrival, but it was necessary for the fish to be worked.

^* said he carefully abstained from dealing with the exempted process. What he objected to was the non-enforcement of the existing law.

^* said he would answer that point presently. When the boats returned at night the work had to be done as quickly as possible, but seldom had people to work after twelve o'clock, although they might not have commenced until seven o'clock or eight o'clock. By the limitations of the Factory Acts, salt or dried fish was not allowed to be worked before six o'clock in the morning or after six o'clock in the evening, and the Home Secretary had given instructions that the whole of the sanitary clauses were to be put into force. But with reference to the herring industry, he did not think that the Home Office would be able to proceed very much further without doing very serious in- jury to it generally. There were 60,000 men engaged in the fishing industry round the coast of Scotland. They were supposed to be the finest fishermen in the world, and they provided good recruits for the Navy. In the island of Lewis alone they numbered 6,000, and it would be very serious if limitations and restrictions were imposed which would hamper their industry and drive it out. The curing industry in Scotland at present was at a lower ebb than it had been for twenty years, and he felt sure that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, who took a great interest in the question, would be the last to assist in any way in hampering the fishing industry. Speaking from his own experience, there was no more loyal, industrious, or willing body of men than the men engaged in the fishing industry in Scotland. Only that afternoon he received a communication asking if the Admiralty would accept 500 of them from Fraserburgh for the Royal Naval Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, when he was at the Home Office, always listened to representations on behalf of the fishermen with great attention, and always did what he could to help them. He hoped that hon. Members would not attempt in any shape or form to further limit the time during which fresh fish might be dealt with on landing.

^* : As a large number of questions have been addressed to me, it may be more desirable to deal with them now, before we pass on to consider other questions. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean commenced this discussion by finding some fault, and I think legitimately, with the delay in the production of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and he referred to the promise given by my predecessor that he would facilitate the early production of the Report in order that hon. Members might have it in their possession before the Vote for the Home Office came on in future sessions. I can assure the right hon. Baronet that if we were not successful this year in carrying out the promise made by my predecessor it has not been for want of the utmost endeavour on my part to obtain the earliest possible production of the Report. The difficulty has not been with the Home Office. As the right hon. Baronet knows when such a Report passes out of our hands into the hands of the Stationery Office, all power on our part to hasten forward its publication disappears. We have used our utmost exertions, and have expressed as far as we possibly could to the Stationery Office the great desirability of publishing this Report earlier this year. We referred to the promise made by my predecessor, and used every means in our power to hasten forward the publication, but to our complete disappointment we have not succeeded. I do not think, however, that the delay is due even in a small degree to those pictures to which the right hon. Baronet has referred. They are no doubt extremely interesting to experts, though perhaps not quite as interesting to the general reader, and if time were to be sacrificed in order to produce them, I think that the disadvantage of the delay would be greater than the advantage to be derived from them. But I do not think that was so. There is a great mass of matter in this Report, including an enormous amount of statistics, all of which require to be carefully revised at the Home Office before assuming their ultimate form, and having regard to the great amount of detail and the pressure of other business in the Stationery Office, it is not difficult to understand the regrettable delay which has taken place. I am afraid I cannot do more than repeat to the right hon. Baronet and to the Committee the undertaking which my predecessor gave that nothing will be wanting on my part to facilitate the early publication of the Report next year. With reference to the manner in which the Report has been produced, I think the Home Office have every reason to be satisfied with the criticisms which have been made. I was glad to hear the satisfaction with which the Report was received, and I hope I may be allowed to join my congratulations with those of hon. Members to the inspectors both male and female for the admirable exposition which they have presented to the House of the matters which came under their supervision.

The criticisms of the right hon. Baronet were confined to two points. One referred to the fish exemptions and the general administration of the Home Office in regard to the fish trade, and the other referred to lead poisoning. With regard to the fish trade, the right hon Baronet stated that the curing industry was often carried on under the most disgusting and insanitary conditions. I am not prepared to deny, having regard to the reports which we have had, that the conditions under which the trade is carried on in the exempted periods are anything but satisfactory, from a sanitary point of view, but owing to the position of the law at present there are great difficulties in putting into force the sanitary provisions so far as exempted periods are concerned. In fact, as the right hon. Baronet knows, the fish curing industry during the exempted periods immediately after the arrival of the boats is exempted not only as far as the hours of labour are concerned, but as regards all the provisions of the Factory Acts, and therefore there is no supervision at all during these periods. We propose to remedy that in the Bill now before Parliament, and while we consider it necessary to provide certain exemptions with regard to hours, we do not think it at all necessary that the industry should be exempted during the exempted periods from the ordinary sanitary provisions under which the trade has to be carried on at other periods of the year. If the Bill becomes law, we hope that the authorities will be able to deal not only in a satisfactory manner with the sanitary conditions of the trade, but that we shall be able to deal more effectively with the trade during the time when no exemption can be claimed. The right hon. Baronet said we had extended these periods. I do not know whether he refers to a certain operation known as kippering, which, it has been contended by some, is really outside the scope of the Acts. No doubt what the right hon Baronet said is true, namely, that this operation has not been interfered with, although there is an opinion in some quarters that it is not entitled to exemption under the Act. We regard the matter as one of so much doubt that the Home Office have never felt justified in interfering with the operation, because it is part of a process sanctioned by Act of Parliament. However, we are dealing with that in the Bill, in order to make it perfectly clear.

Then, the right hon. Baronet referred to the question of lead poisoning in the Potteries. I may say generally, in regard to the whole discussion on that matter, that having regard to the fact that there is an arbitration case now proceeding, and that the question is in a sense sub judice I do not feel quite at liberty to discuss it with that freedom with which I would be prepared to discuss it if this case was not under consideration at the present moment. But there are some points in the discussion to which I may allude. It is a matter for congratulation to all of us, not only to hon. Members, but also to manufacturers, that the number of lead poisoning cases in 1900 has so considerably decreased, and also that another poisoning process—phosphorous poisoning—has entirely disappeared. The right hon. Baronet complains that the Home Office have been extremely slow with reference to the new rules, and he asked why. When I came to the Home Office, I found that the matter was proceeding, and I can assure the right hon. Baronet that I have done my best to take care that there shall be no delay in bringing the matter to a decision. But negotiations were going on with the manufacturers at that time, and we were not without considerable hope that some agreement might be arrived at; and I am sure the right hon Baronet will agree with me that if there was a possibility of coming to some satisfactory arrangement with the manufacturers, it would have been wise to have done so, rather than postpone dealing with the question for so long a time as is involved in the operation of arbitration. Looking at the position, at the beginning of the year, I came to the conclusion, inasmuch as the law did not place on the Home Secretary the actual responsibility of ultimately deciding the question, and had devised a method by which a decision could be arrived at, that it would be more advisable to settle the question at once by referring it to arbitration. There has undoubtedly been some little delay in carrying this matter to arbitration, but the two arbitrators have now been appointed, and the umpire has also, been decided on. Lord James has undertaken, at the request of the arbitrators, to act as umpire, and although I cannot promise any immediate decision, I think the Committee may rely upon it that no delay will be caused by Lord James, if the matter comes before him.

Who are the arbitrators?

I forget for the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper I will let him know. I know from experience that Lord James, in connection with a matter affecting railway servants, acted in a manner so expeditious as to give the utmost satisfaction to all oncerned. The right hon. Baronet spoke of delay after arbitration, but, whatever the decision of the arbitrators in the matter may be, we must allow the manufacturers some little time to make arrangements to carry out the award. Those are the points referred to by the right hon. Baronet. My hon. friend the Member for Stoke found great fault with the Home Office and their advisers generally with regard to this question, and he asked—

"Why not let things take their course? They are going on very satisfactorily; cases are being reduced, and why not leave the matter alone altogether?

Is it possible to leave the matter alone? If the Home Office, on the advice of their inspectors, are convinced that there remains still some room for improvement in the working of this dangerous material by which a still greater reduction can be made in the number of persons killed and permanently injured by this most desolating complaint, then it would have been most unwise, and indefensible as well, on our part to have allowed the matter to rest. My hon. friend found great fault with Dr. Thorpe and his advisers with regard to the proportion of 2 per cent. He says Dr. Thorpe is not a practical business man, but he is a very great scientist; and, after all, it would be almost impossible to deal with this question on the advice of other than chemical and scientific men. Dr. Thorpe is a man of very great eminence in his profession, and we feel bound to submit to arbitration the views he has expressed to us. That is all we have done.

Are you to banish the commercial point of view altogether?

^* : Certainly not. After Dr. Thorpe had submitted his Report, we placed ourselves in communication with all the manufacturers, and we found that they were quite ready to yield on many points.

Not on the 2 per cent.

^* : No, not on the 2 per cent. Surely when we found that no compromise was possible, we had no choice but to refer the matter to arbitration. There was no other way on which, we could possibly have proceeded. If the Bill now before Parliament were passed we might be on a different footing, but on the existing law we could not take on ourselves the responsibility of saying that Dr. Thorpe was wrong when the means of deciding whether he was right or wrong existed. That is the method which has been adopted. The hon. Member for Berwickshire referred among other matters to cases of lead poisoning in the printing trade, and quoted some figures in the Report to show that there was, lead poisoning connected with that trade. I think there is no doubt that is so. My information is that the danger in the printing trade arises from handling lead type, and that the people engaged in this trade do not take sufficient care to wash their hands, but eat their meals without doing so.

That is the case with all dangerous trades.

^* : No, Sir; I beg the hon. Member's pardon, it is not. There are cases where dangerous fumes and dust rises which make it exceedingly injurious for people to be there at their meals; but that danger does not arise in the printing trade. I am afraid I cannot undertake to impose upon all printing establishments in the country the responsibility and difficulty of providing rooms for employees to take their meals in as was proposed in connection with dangerous trades.

^* asked the right hon. Gentleman to have inquiries made in the next few days in reference to the possible danger to health arising from the melting of monotype and linotype.

And stereotype.

^* said he could only speak of what he knew, and the melting he referred to was usually carried on virtually in the one room or in a room communicating with other rooms.

Certainly I will have inquiries made. Then the hon. Member asks me whether I will consider the case of the ganister mines; that matter has not been brought to my notice before, but I will certainly see what can be done. He also asked me whether I would take some steps to see that children and young persons in certain workshops are provided with a certificate of fitness. It is quite true that they do not come quite within the same provisions as children employed in factories, but, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt is aware, the Home Office already does what he desires with regard to certain classes of workshops now. I will see whether that power is exercised in these cases. The hon. Member also referred to the question of laundries and workshops, and asked whether we could make arrangements for the privacy of examination. I told the hon. Gentleman when we were discussing the Factory Bill that I did not think that anything was required in the Bill, but that if anything came to my knowledge suggesting that such a provision was required, I would make such representations as were necessary, but that I did not consider it was necessary to put that detail in the Bill. As to the appointment of a lady inspector for the Potteries district, which the hon. Gentleman also desires, that is a matter which has been impressed on the Home Secretary more than once, but the matter is not entirely in his hands, and a strong case will have to be made out to justify a resident lady inspector there, the services of lady inspectors being available wherever they were required to go. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the desirability of increasing the number of lady inspectors. The tribute paid by the hon. Member to lady inspectors, especially to Miss Deane, whose services we are all sorry to lose, but whose worth will, I am sure, be well appreciated where she has gone, was well deserved, and arrangements will be made to continue the good work which she commenced. With regard to the increase of inspectors generally when the Factory Bill which is now before Parliament passes into law, it will be my duty to reconsider the whole question of the inspectorate, and along with that we shall consider the desirability of more women inspectors being appointed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford spoke about the overwork in fruit factories, and told the House that the Committee had inserted a provision in that Bill which would give the Secretary of State increased powers in reference to overwork in fruit factories. Whatever power is given to the Home Office I shall not hesitate to use. The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the increase of fatal and other accidents in trades throughout the country, and no doubt there was such an increase, although there has been a remarkable decrease in some occupations. It is impossible for me to state any reasons which are at all likely to be satisfactory to the Committee for that increase, but it is a remarkable fact that an increase of accidents very often accompanies an increase in industrial activity, and there has been a very marked increase in industrial activity during the last three years, and with that increase there has been an increased number of accidents. It is, of course, the duty of the Home Office to see that all the powers they possess are exercised for the purpose of reducing the number of these regrettable accidents, and I assure the Committee I am deeply sensible of the responsibility of the Department for the use and increase of powers to carry out this primary duty.

I think I have now dealt with all the questions raised with the exception of the question relating to the safety of the streets of London and the all-night coffee stalls, which I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman are very often the resort of thieves, prostitutes, and undesirable characters. The Commissioner informs me that he has done his utmost to deal with what is undoubtedly a very difficult question, and has issued orders to the police that where any dis- turbance or anything of that kind occurs a summons should be taken out, and where a local authority was opposed to the continuance of a coffee-stall and persons could be found to give evidence, or make complaint in writing, the police would take action. But I am far from saying this matter is in a satisfactory condition. Of course coffee-stalls were started to meet a public want, but no doubt they have, in many instances, gone far beyond what was intended and what is necessary, and if any proper and adequate way of dealing with the evils can be found without interfering with stalls that serve a useful purpose it shall be adopted. I will consult the Chief Commissioner on the subject, and see whether anything can be done to put an end to that evil.

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was entirely in accord with the course of the debate, and his exposition and defence of the Factory Acts was satisfactory to the Committee, both in substance and in spirit. There are two reasons why we have had a rather less extended debate than usual upon the work of this important Department. In the first place, the Report of the chief inspector shows an unusually fruitful and energetic exercise by the Department of the powers Parliament has placed at its disposal; and, in the second place, we are engaged in constructive legislation upon the very subject-matter that usually forms the subject of debate on these occasions; and we have an assured hope that before the session closes the powers of the Home Office will be largely and usefully increased. I shall, therefore, only make one or two observations upon this subject. The first will have reference to the much - discussed and long-delayed question in reference to the readjustment on reasonably safe lines of the conditions under which the pottery trade is to be carried on. I do not blame the Department, for I well know the difficulties to be encountered, but it is not creditable to the nation that this dispute should have been going on ever since I came to the Home Office, and that we should only now have reached the point of arbitration for the purpose of deciding the point. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke, at the eleventh hour, that nothing should be done, but that the evil should be left to the business instincts of the persons concerned, is a belated defence of a state of things which has proved to be wholly indefensible.

This is quite a new point. It has never been before the right hon. Gentleman.

As to the particular detail, that may be so; but it is only one incident in a controversy which has now been going on for ten years, and during all that time, though I recognise that considerable improvements have been made in the conditions under which these poor people carry on their labour, yet the statistics of mortality now are such as call urgently for legislative and departmental interference. I am sorry that the Home Secretary does not look with favour on the suggestion that for a time one of the lady inspectors should be stationed in this district. He does not see the necessity.

^* : I thought the suggestion was that the appointment was to be permanent.

No, no; it may turn out to be permanent, though I do not think it will be; but my suggestion has always been that it should be temporary at first. A similar experiment has been tried by establishing one of the lady inspectors in the west of London, with the best results. I do not attach much importance to "the practice of the Department." That practice must be moulded to meet the requirements of the case, and if one experiment has been tried with success, the experiment should be repeated in the case of the Potteries. There is a very special and peculiar necessity for the experiment, because, as women and young persons preponderate in the trade, a lady inspector can do what no male inspector can do: bring herself into close contact with the workers, and obtain from them with greater spontaneity the actual facts and the real details of their life and work. I have looked with considerable care at the Report with regard to the general position of the lady inspectors, and I find that the staff, which began in 1893 with two, has now risen to seven; that in itself is a gratifying incident, but it is still far short of the requirements. I know the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman in contending with another Department which has to be consulted; but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way in the next twelve months to urge the extension of this not very extensive and most useful addition to the staff of the Home Office. And I think it would also be desirable to increase the clerical assistance to the lady inspectors. That there should be two clerks, and two only, to do the whole of this work is a sort of parsimony which does not tend to economy. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeds on those lines he will vastly increase the utility of his Department.

I think that is all I need say on the question of factories, but there are two matters connected with the Home Office upon which I should like to take the opportunity of saying a few words. The first relates to a question debated in the House the other night which is strictly relevant to this question—namely, the duty of the Home Office in relation to the despatch of the military forces of the Crown in cases of civil disturbance. There is no subject in the department of constitutional law on which, even in the House of Commons, more misapprehension exists. There are some who think that it is the business of the Home Office to preserve law and order throughout the country. Nothing of the kind. In London, no doubt, where the Home Secretary is head of the police, he has special duties cast upon him. But it cannot be too clearly understood that by the law of this country the maintenance of law and order is a local, and not a, central, responsibility. The local magistrates are the keepers of the peace. It is they, and they alone, who, in the last resort, have the duty of keeping order, and if they neglect to take the steps necessary in any particular circumstances they are liable to indictment for misdemeanour. What, then, is the function of the Home Office 1 It is one which has grown up by usage, and which is not to be found in any statute; but it is a useful function. It is advisory. It is useful that local magistrates in cases of doubt and perplexity should be able to communicate with the Home Office and obtain advice suggested by ex- perience of similar cases in the past. But it is impossible to distinguish too clearly between the local responsibility for the enforcement of the law and the central function of giving advice. The question is, what is the kind of advice which it is the duty of the Home Office to give? I speak, I am bound to say, from a not very pleasant experience. When I was at the Home Office the military were called in in connection with certain disputes in the West Riding, with the result that a regrettable loss of life took place. I had nothing to do with the calling in of the military, and knew nothing about it until the day after that occurrence; yet I have been freely branded as an assassin and murderer in that connection. But what is the advice which the Home Office gave in those circumstances? In the first place, the requisition for the attendance of the military must proceed from the local magistrates, and from them alone. No one else has power to make such a demand; and in my opinion the military authorities would be justified in refusing such a request unless they were satisfied that it came from the magistrates responsible for the law and order of the district. In the second place, assuming such a request to come from the proper quarter, the advice to be given is that the intervention of the military should be avoided at all costs, except the cost of injury to life and property, and that of failure in the primary duty to maintain order and give protection to law-abiding citizens. In order to avoid the intervention of the military, the first step which the local authority ought to take, if their own police force is inadequate, is to exercise their statutory power under the Police Acts of borrowing constables from adjacent authorities to make up the deficiency. It is far better to deal with such an emergency by police than by military force. In the Penrhyn case I understand it is alleged that that power of borrowing had been resorted to and exhausted. But there is another step which ought to be taken before calling in the military—the resort to the old English method of swearing in special constables. There are many districts and circumstances where that is, if not impossible, an inappropriate step. In the large towns it is an easy thing to do, but in large, straggling, rural districts the delay of bringing the men together would be too great. As a general rule, it is only subject to these conditions that the local authorities ought to be advised to call in the services of the military. If these conditions are complied with, and no other means exist, then, of course, the military are resorted to; and their duty in this matter has often been laid down; but by no one with greater authority than Lord Bowen. The military has the duty of the ordinary citizen, and has no special privileges or responsibility, except that the possession of rifles demands special care. But it is the duty of the military, as of every citizen, to respond to the call of the authorities and protect the law-abiding. If these simple rules were complied with and generally understood, a great deal of misapprehension would be dispelled, and the friction and ill-feeling which generally attend the calling in of the military would be to a large extent mitigated if not dispelled. But it is only on these lines that the Home Office can safely counsel the local authorities to resort to military assistance.

There is another matter connected with the administration of the law to which I wish to refer, and that is the habitual and almost systematic failure of magistrates to exercise their power of giving bail to prisoners committed for trial. This, again, is a matter in which the Home Office has only an advisory power. When I was at the Home Office, I sent a circular to every clerk of the peace, calling attention to the scandalous state of things which existed. In eight weeks 576 persons had been remanded without bail, and of them 126 were acquitted. I do not hesitate to say that that is scandalous and ought not to be allowed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that in some of those cases bail could not be found, and in others the police objected to bail?

There are some cases of both kinds, but there are a vast number of cases in which these persons could be released on their own recognisances, and would appear upon their trial. What I am saying is that all the evidence tends to show that there are some benches of magistrates who do not exercise their power of granting bail; with the result that innocent people are kept in gaol who ought not to be kept there. I hope that that is a matter which will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that if he cannot deal with it under administrative action, and if legislation is necessary, he will not hesitate to introduce the necessary measure. I have only to add my hearty congratulations on the extremely good character of the Report.

^* : May I say that, in regard to the action of the military in Wales, I associate myself with every word which the right hon. Gentleman has said? The action of the Home Office has been confined entirely within the limits of responsibility laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. The Home Office took no step to send these troops down to Bethesda. It was quite true that the Home Office received a petition, through the Chief Constable, from a number of workmen in the district, to the effect that they were molested and their wives and children were in danger. But it was on the day before the reply to that petition was received from the Home Office that the magistrates of the joint committee sent the requisition for troops. The Home Office knew nothing about the requisition until the troops had been sent. I can only hope from the accounts which we received yesterday and to-day that the duration of the stay of the troops may be very short; but, for my part, I do not wish to assume any responsibility.

I quite assent to the correctness of the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and I desire to make only one observation, that it is not the business of the police officer or Chief Constable. The only quarter from which a legitimate requisition can proceed is the magistrate.

said he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his lucid statement of the law, and he would just like to state what occurred in Bethesda on Saturday. There was a great demonstration of quarrymen; some 1,200 or 1,500 men marched in procession past the military, the police, and the magistrate, who was there to read the Riot Act if necessary. These men passed by in an orderly manner; they were singing, but they sang not riotous songs or ribald airs, but hymns, and the military uncovered as they marched by. He was sure that, after the statement the right hon. Gentleman made, he would take steps to withdraw the troops from the neighbourhood at the eartiest opportunity.

I did not say that; what I intended to convey was that I declined to make myself responsible for law and order in the district, but that, having regard to the peaceful attitude of the people, we may look forward to the arrival of a happy period when the troops will be withdrawn.

^* said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman's remarks would be taken as a suggestion if not a direction by the local authorities to speedily withdraw the troops. There were two questions to which he wished to refer. He had repeatedly drawn attention to the administration of the metalliferous mines and quarries in North Wales, and the recommendations with regard to special rules and the certification of managers. The position under the Coal Mines Acts was that every manager of a coal mine had to be properly certified, but in the metalliferous mines and quarries in North Wales managers might be appointed who had no knowledge whatever of the working of those mines. In his constituency there were two of the largest slate quarries in the world, where some 6,000 workmen were normally employed, and the chief managers of those quarries had no qualification whatever for the post, had never been certificated, and would not be allowed to take the management of the smallest coal mine in England or Wales. The Metalliferous Mines Acts were only tentative at best, and had become almost obsolete. The average slate quarry was as dangerous as the average coal mine, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do what he could to remedy this matter by legislation and administration. The late Home Secretary in 1899 stated it was the intention of the Home Office pending further legislation to try and get some special rules of the sort recom- mended by Dr. Neve Foster, then chief inspector, as far as possible accepted. He also declared that a Bill had been prepared for some time, which contained a provision analogous to that contained in the Coal Mines Act, that there should be proper certification of managers in metalliferous mines. He (Mr. William Jones) hoped that quarries would be included within the scope of the Bill. If certificated managers were required for collieries, they became necessary also for the slate mines and quarries. Any privileges belonging to the collier under the Coal Mines Regulation Act should be conferred upon the quarrier and the slate-getter. Interested magistrates were forbidden to adjudicate upon cases under the Coal Mines Act; why should they be considered sufficiently impartial for dealing with cases coming under the Metalliferous and Quarries Acts? The next point he desired to draw attention to was that the Chief Inspector, Dr. Foster, who had always done his work well, had now retired to take a well-merited rest, and had been succeeded by a gentleman who had hitherto been inspector under the Coal Mines Regulations Acts. That gentleman was now chief inspector of quarries and metalliferous mines. Had the gentleman been a Welshman he would not have objected to the appointment, but all the English districts had been eliminated from the sphere of his jurisdiction, so that an exclusively Welsh district was supervised by one who had no knowledge of Welsh. A person with a knowledge of the Welsh language should have been preferred, as was set out in the Coal Mines Regulation Act and in the Quarries Act, 1894. Two Welsh-speaking assistant inspectors Were appointed six years ago, and Dr. Foster's recent report contained a tribute to their admirable work. Both were capable men, and either would make a competent chief inspector. He hoped that when the opportunity occurred the right hon Gentleman would take care that for these districts a gentleman should be appointed who was acquainted with the Welsh language.

^* , in raising the question of the London housing problem, said that the motion for reduction which he had placed upon the Paper was in no way hostile to the right hon Gentleman, but merely put down to give an opportunity of raising this question. The Home Office was the office above all others which had to deal with this question, and the Metropolis was to be greatly congratulated on the fact that there was at the present moment at the Home Office a Minister who had shown such sympathy with this question and such an anxiety to meet it in its different lines. It was a fortnight ago that the subject was brought up on the Vote of the President of the Local Government Board, and he was impressed by one or two speeches which were made on that occasion with the fact that there was a theory that the provision of adequate accommodation for the working classes in London should be the work of private enterprise, and of private enterprise alone, and that it was no business of the public authority to interfere in any way in that undertaking. He thought those who had devoted attention to this subject must feel that a, more antiquated and more belated theory could not possibly be propounded. He did not wish to infer that private enterprise had not done in the past, and was not doing now, an immense amount of good work, but it had of necessity failed, owing to the immense increase and to the continuous amount of displacement; to cope with this great question, and therefore the public authority had been brought in, not to supplant, but to supplement, private enterprise. The London Count Council, who had set themselves energetically to grapple with this work under Part 3 of the Act, had found that in a very large way its operations were checked by the existing law and regulations. He did not think the Home Office was in any way to blame for this. No doubt those regulations were framed at a time when it was not contemplated for a moment that the public authority would be called upon to undertake housing operations on the gigantic scale which was necessary to-day. But he wanted to point out that the Home Office should now recognise that a great development had taken place, and was taking place; and that, therefore, a considerable alteration of those regulations must be brought about if a really comprehensive work was to be done by the London County Council. Owing to these restrictions of administration and of the law, the London County Council, although they were quite capable of erecting houses of a character for the wage-earner upon a high standard, they were totally incapable of erecting houses of a character and at a rent suitable for the wage-earner on the lowest standard. It was on that point he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them his most earnest support in the future.

There were two schools of thought among those who had devoted their attention to this subject. One school was of opinion that the public authority should only erect dwellings of such a high standard of health and sanitation and such a rent that only the higher class of wage-earners could go into them, and that if they did that, by some means known only to themselves, these houses dotted all over the place would increase the standard of wages earned in London; and the other school, more sympathetic, said the duty of the public authority was to build houses for the poorer classes of the Metropolis. He believed it was the imperative duty of the local authority to build every kind of house for every kind of workman. They could do so for those earning a higher standard of wage, but not for those earning a low rate of wage. The rents asked for the houses erected by the London County Council ranged from 6s. 6d.to 12s. a week, so that on the calculation that a man with a wife and a normal family could afford to pay one-fifth of his income in rent, no workman earning less than 35s. a week could be there accommodated. Thousands of men in the Metropolis would never earn more than 21s. or 25s. per week, and for these tenements of two rooms and a scullery for 4s. or 5s. a week, such as some of the companies provided, were required. The expense attaching to the dwellings could be very materially reduced if the Secretary of State could see his way to introduce legislation by which the period for the repayment of loans would be extended from sixty to a hundred, years. The burden would not fall on the future ratepayers of London, as the money was found out of the rents. In its early days the London County Council most properly imposed upon itself a regulation, to which in the face of difficulty and inconvenience it had loyally adhered— namely, that no houses should be erected by the Council which were not entirely paid for by the rents. If to extend the period of repayment was a slight infringement of economic principles, that infringement would sink into insignificance compared with the serious infringement which would be committed if the time ever came when, through inability to provide houses at a low rent, public authorities were obliged to obtain a subsidy from the county rate. The matter had been worked out very carefully in connection with the Guinness Fund, and a saving of 8d. or 9d. per room per week was made by—

^* ruled that the hon. Member was going somewhat beyond the Vote.

^* said he had a further point, which directly concerned the Home Office. The capable architect of the London County Council had most carefully worked out a list of proposed modifications of the regulations governing the erection of working-class dwellings, which, if permitted by the Home Office, would in no small measure reduce the expense. The right hon. Gentleman had received a copy of that list, so that it was unnecessary to go through all the very technical matters involved. He did not suggest that the modifications should be adopted for all houses. What he wanted to see was a degree of elasticity which would enable dwellings to be erected for the lower standard of wage earners. These alterations had reference, among other things, to the reduction of the superficial area— a modification which under modern sanitary conditions would leave these dwellings better than the dwellings in which the people whom it was proposed to benefit had been accustomed to live— to the number of people who might use one staircase, to the angle of light, and so on. As regarded the displacement of residents by railway and other companies, it was no doubt true that the great railway companies must develop their London termini, but it could not be denied that in so doing they had dis- placed many hundreds of people. Parliament imposed an obligation upon the companies to rehouse in such cases, but that obligation was undoubtedly scamped as much as possible. He suggested that, instead of imposing the obligation of rehousing on the companies, they should confer with the London County Council and representatives of his right hon. friend's office, if necessary, and calculate exactly how many families had been displaced and the price per head or family for rehousing them. Then the company might hand over a sum of money to the County Council sufficient for the rehousing of the people who had been displaced. The County Council, having at their disposal the machinery for erecting dwellings, would be able to rehouse the people more quickly than the railway company, and certainly more efficiently. Another point to which he would ask the right hon. Gentleman's earnest consideration was that of the radius within which the persons displaced had to be rehoused. At present an equivalent amount of accommodation had to be provided within a radius of one mile of the displacement. That was a source of gigantic expense to the ratepayers of London, and he suggested that the radius might very well be extended to five, six, or even more miles, so that the accommodation could be provided where land was much cheaper. During the last twenty-five years the difference between the commercial value and the "written down housing value" of land which had been bought for purposes of rehousing was no less than £1,206,000. The facts of the case did not bear out the assertion that unless people were rehoused on practically the same spot great inconvenience was inflicted. In the case of the Blackwall Tunnel 1,210 people were displaced, but only nine of the original people went to the dwellings that were erected; on the Boundary Street area only eleven persons out of a total of 5,719 availed themselves of the accommodation provided; and, more recently still, on the Falcon area, only forty out of a total of 800 returned to the dwellings.

suggested that the reason was that the places erected were so expensive that the people could not afford to pay the rents.

That is just the point.

^* said he relied upon the development in London of rapid locomotion, both underground and surface, to get over this difficulty, so that people would be able to live several miles from their work and yet be able to get to and fro without inconvenience or great expense. Much was heard nowadays about Imperial ideas, but in his judgment there was no greater Imperial work for any statesman in this country than that of doing all in his power to ameliorate the condition of the hundreds of thousands of people who were living amid unhealthy surroundings in this great metropolis, and it was in the belief that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to forward that work that he had brought this matter to his attention.

desired to call the attention of the Committee to a subject of widespread importance—namely, the increase of late years in the number of indecent and obscene exhibitions which had sprung up in different parts of the country, mainly as the result of the discovery of the mutoscope. The attention of the Home Secretary had twice been called to the matter, and on the last occasion the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the nuisance had recently abated. That statement was probably made in consequence of the fact that, after the first question in the House, the particular exhibition in question removed the pictures complained of, but the evidently expected prosecution not being undertaken the pictures had been restored. The country was being deluged with protests against the present objectionable condition of things, and clergymen and Sunday-school superintendents were being warned against taking children to certain resorts. The task he had undertaken was a very disagreeable one, but he would try to carry it out with as little offensiveness as possible. It was, however, a nasty subject, and he wanted the Home Secretary to realise what these exhibitions were, and not to depend upon the opinion of the police, whose idea of the obscene was generally extremely blunt. These filthy mutoscopes and similar photographic abominations were everywhere—at sea-side resorts, country fairs, in the main thoroughfares of great towns, and even at places devoted to Sunday-school treats. In London the firms who dealt in these disgusting exhibitions hired empty shops, leaving them when let to go to others. The exhibitions might be seen to-day in Oxford Street, High Street, Kensington, Coventry Street, the Strand, Westminster Bridge Road, under the shadow of the clock tower, Ludgate Hill, and King William Street, in the City. There were hundreds of them at Earl's Court Exhibition. If in any of our public schools the masters found similar photographs in the possession of one of his boys he would promptly expel that boy, and the parents of any other boy would thank him for doing so. If such living pictures as were shown in these mutoscopes appeared on the stage of any theatre or music-hall, an outraged public opinion would clamour for and obtain their suppression, and surely Sunday-school scholars and office boys of the City were as deserving of protection from the State against these horribly corrupting influences as the theatre-going public, or the sons of rich men in our public schools.

He did not bring his indictment against these shows on hearsay; he had personally investigated them. For some weeks past a succession of obscene and indecent mutoscopes and stereoscopes had been on exhibition in the most crowded corner of the City, in King William Street, next door to the Monument Station. The exhibition consisted of kalloscopes, which were not the same as mutoscopes. The kalloscope was an automatic machine, about 18 inches square, made of wood. The mechanism was very simple, and was worked by a spindle, to which were fixed stereoscopic views. The light was an ordinary small oil-lamp with a single wick. For the most part the views consisted of semi-nude females, many of the subjects being of such a nature as to corrupt the morals of young people. He had been able to purchase certain kalloscope slides from the London Photographic Company, 180, Clerkenwell Road, which he desired the Home Secretary to inspect. They were simply indescribable, and were made worse by the fact that they were transparencies. These pictures could be bought at various prices ranging from 1s. 6d.; the particular set he had handed to the right hon. Gentleman cost 4s. That the people concerned knew they were sailing very near the wind, if not actually infringing the law, was evidenced by the extreme precautions they exercised, and the difficulty of obtaining the pictures. A few days previously he visited the place in King William Street. The window was full of suggestive pictures, and the police had constantly to move on the crowds of young men and lads who were looking at them. Inside he counted fifty-seven lads, who appeared to be under sixteen, eagerly waiting their turn for the peep-shows. The labels themselves were an offence upon public morals. For example, there were: "Funny Fat Women"; "Actresses' Private Hotel"; "The Great Undressing Act—A Fetching Scene"; "Jones's Adventures at a French Ball"; "How the Girls were caught Bathing"; "Five Girls in One Bed"; "Dressing for the Fancy Ball"; "Going to Bed"; "Nelly's Show-bath "; and "Last in Bed puts out the Light." These titles were not sells, the pictures fully justified the titles. There was a similar show on Hampstead Heath, actually located in the midst of the children's playground, set apart for Sunday-school treats and such like. Any Saturday half-holiday clusters of children might be seen round each mutoscope waiting their turn to look. The following were some of the titles of these vile peep-shows at Hampstead Heath: "A Naughty Artist's Model"; "A Wicked Girl"; "Gay Life in London at Night"; "The Naughty Monk and the Lady"; "Lady Undressing"; "Lady going to Bed"; "Her Bath"; "After the Bath"; "Naughty Maud going to Bed"; "French Lady in Hammock"; "Bedroom of the Parisian French Laundress (special)." These pictures also were well up to the titles and fully justified the prurient expectation excited.

He did not desire to weary and disgust the House by unnecessary reiteration of the innumerable exhibitions of this character. They were so widespread and so popular with certain classes, especially lads, that he had no hesitation in saying that every day tens of thousands of young people were being polluted and degraded by them all over the country. Most of these shows were in the hands of the worst sort of blackguards from the back slums of Soho and Holywell Street. These men were slippery customers, hard to catch, and their infamous profits were well able to stand the risk of fine or imprisonment. He invited the Home Secretary to order a complete police investigation of two important companies, with large permanent offices, a responsible board of directors, and a capital of £250,000 in one case and £75,000 in the other, which supplied on hire the very worst of these abominations. At Earl's Court there were at least a couple of hundred of these machines, and they were all labelled as the property of the "Mutoscope and Biograph Syndicate." That was the original company which started the aft air, but the business had since been taken over by the British Mutoscope and Biograph Company, formed for the purpose of acquiring the syndicate. They had in their turn sub-let their rights to the London and District Mutoscope Company—two of the directors sitting on both boards. The British Mutoscope and Biograph Company appeared to have the monopoly of the show at Earl's Court. That day he had watched hundreds of young lads and lasses looking at these machines, and roaring with laughter at their contents. The chairman of the company was a wealthy and well-known man, and the directors were all responsible persons. The company paid 10 per cent, dividend on a quarter of a million of money. The chairman had seen him that day and had protested that it was very unfair to bring the matter up in the House, as the pictures did not belong to the company. The machines, however, belonged to the company, and whether the pictures were imported from America or not did not matter—without the box and the handle of the company they could not be seen. He was, therefore, justified in holding the company responsible. The following were the titles of some of the Biographs and Mutoscopes on view at Earl's Court: "Why Marie put out the Candle"; "Three Baths at the Price of One"; "What she Found in Bed";. "Inside a Ladies' Swimming Bath"; "Fun in a Girls' Dormitory"; "High Kicking at the Mountain Range"; "The Artist's Dream"; "Her Morning Dip"; "Trying on her new Bathing Suit"; "Phyllis wasn't Dressed"; Did they Tear their Bathing Dresses?" "Not a Man in Sight—so the Girls thought."

Another company was the London and District Mutoscope Company; its offices were at 48, Rupert Street, W. Its directors were responsible persons. Among its shareholders were Peers and Peeresses, Baronets, and eleven Members of this House. He felt it his duty to write last Friday to each of those eleven hon. Members informing them of his intention to invite the Home Secretary to prosecute the company. These eleven Gentlemen held one-sixth of the entire capital, and one at least, who held 5,000 shares in his own name, was one of the original promoters of the company. He had no desire whatever to stigmatise those hon. Members—ten of whom were on the Government side of the House, while the one to whom he has specially referred sat in Opposition. He had no doubt they invested their money in what they believed to be a respectable concern, and knew nothing of its deterioration since. This company was the principal trader in mutoscopes. It possessed an enormous stock, which it let out on hire at 3s. 6d. a week for each picture. Many of the pictures were beautiful and pure works of art, but these were not the popular ones. It was those that came under the general heading of "funny" out of which the company appeared to derive most of its profits There was also an exhibition in Coventry Street, which consisted entirely of mutoscopes furnished by this company, and which he understood were in the hands of the company itself and not let out on hire. In fact, the secretary had stated the place was the company's showrooms. Some of the mutoscopes were quite harmless—racing, dancing, scenes from popular plays— but these were quite neglected in favour of the "funny" ones. The following were some of the titles that commanded the general custom of the frequenters: "The Spider and Fly"; "A Startler, or three Giddy Girls Romping"; "Why Marie Blew out the Light"; "Tough Adventure in a Flat"; "Jealousy in a Dressing-room"; "Through the Keyhole"; "Searching a Pretty Girl"; "Yards of Lace"; "Girls1 at Midnight"; "Do You Think they Really were—?" Even if the pictures were innocent, the titles were in themselves a gross offence upon decency. These mutoscope pictures, however, were not "sells" but horribly indecent and obscene, ten times worse from their suggestiveness in their effect upon the minds of young people, and in the fact that they were not ordinary photos or engravings, but living, moving pictures, in which the gestures and the faces of the persons were used to excite prurient and abominable sequels not fit to speak about. The pictures he was about to describe might be seen in Coventry Street, in cases labelled as the property of the London and District Mutoscope Company—indeed, as the property of eleven members of this House. "The Spider and Fly"—This represented a nude woman in a kind of spider's web. To her entered a young man, whom she invited by lewd looks and gestures, and finally seized in her clutches, the picture vanishing with every possible obscene suggestion. "Why Marie Put Out the Light"—This represented a young woman in a bedroom fully dressed. She removed one article of dress after another to the last garment, and the picture vanished as she prepares to remove that. These undressing pictures were the most popular of all mutoscopes. They were presented in various ways—"The Inside of a Bathing Machine"; "Peeping Tom"; "Through the Keyhole"; "Nelly's Bath"; "The Great Undressing Act"; "Going to Bed," being only a few of the suggestive titles attached to the cases containing this class of picture. Another mutoscope of the London and District Company was entitled, "Searching a Pretty Girl." This represented a room in a New York Custom House. A male officer brought in a smartly-dressed young woman to a female searcher; the searcher stripped her, garment after garment, down to the last, searching that in the most obscene way. He would weary the House with only one more of the London and District Mutoscope's productions, entitled,"Do You Think They Really Were——?" In this scene a man was found in a room with three women partly undressed, all of whom he kissed. The lobby was also represented in the picture, showing a policeman knocking at the door outside. The man hustled the three girls behind a screen, and presently various articles of clothing—stays, shoes, and stockings—were thrown over the screen, suggesting that the three girls had completely undressed. The policeman burst in, threw down the screen, and found three Salvation Army girls playing tambourines.

He wished he could say that these exhibits of the London and District Mutoscope Company were the worst, but they were not. There were worse in the children's playground at the Heath. But he hoped he had made out a case upon which the Home Secretary could act against a company that had a solid existence, and that he might appeal successfully to those members of the House (some of whom were present, and all of whom he had told of his intention to attack this company), who found themselves in the unpleasant position of shareholders in one of the most abominable trading companies that ever registered at Somerset House. He wished again to emphasise that he was certain that none of his colleagues had until now the slightest knowledge of these facts. It might be that the law could not reach this company and its respectable directors, two of whom were barristers and probably knew how to evade the law. But he thought the Home Secretary was bound to test the law, and, if it was found to be insufficient to deal with such infamous exhibitions, to amend the law accordingly. He was certain the right hon. Gentleman would get the cordial help of hon. Members on his own side of the House who found themselves in the position of shareholders in this company. If he felt at liberty to say who they were, the House would know as well as he did that they could have no knowledge of the way their directors were using the capital they supplied. If the Home Secretary was powerless—which he refused to believe—public opinion would look to those shareholders who occupied public positions to clear out the present directorate and management, and get the business back to pure and decent lines. A simple remedy would be to compel the registration and official sanction of every show of this kind, or by not permitting any exhibition without a licence involving police supervision and control. Plays were under the censorship—not very efficient perhaps—of the Lord Chamberlain. The living scenes he had described, if they appeared in a play, would lead to the suppression of that play. If they were exhibited in a licensed public-house, the licence of that house would be refused renewal by any bench in the country. Why, then, were they permitted, unchecked and uncontrolled, at such places of public resort as Earl's Court Exhibition, at every seaside resort, and on Hampstead Heath, and in all the great thoroughfares of the metropolis? They did some things better in America. He did not hold up the police system of American cities for the imitation of the Home Secretary, but at any rate they cleared their streets of this sort of thing, generally by the simple but effective method of smashing up the whole stock-in-trade, leaving the scoundrels who ran the show to take their own remedy, which they never did. In conclusion, he warned the Home Secretary that public opinion was very deeply moved with regard to this matter and expected him to put a stop to the scandal. He apologised to the House if he had detained them too long on a subject so nauseous and loathesome. It had been a most disagreeable task to him to take the matter up at all, and nothing but the strongest sense of public duty had induced him to do so.

desired cordially to support the hon. Member for the Camborne Division. While, no doubt, many of the pictures which were suggestive and objectionable were not so indecent or obscene as to afford grounds for successful prosecution, he believed others did afford such grounds. After the speech of the hon. Member he hoped the Home Secretary would stir up the police to greater diligence, and that the magistrates would feel that, if, when any such a case was brought before them, they inflicted severe punishment, they would not be going beyond public opinion. He hoped that the debate that evening would show that the feeling of the country was that the magistrates should be strengthened in inflicting severe punishment upon the offenders.

said that none of these mutoscope exhibitions were to be found in the parks or public places under the control of the London County Council. He had acted on the committee of the Council which decided that they should not be allowed in the parks and open spaces controlled by the Council. There were, however, small pieces of ground on Hampstead Heath, filched probably at some time from the Heath, which were the property of private owners, and some of these proprietors exhibited the mutoscope over the hedges with which the County Council had surrounded the plots.

said he wished to draw attention to a certain amount of dissatisfaction which existed in regard to the action of the City Commissioners. He himself had been prosecuted for driving a motor-car at the rate of more than twelve miles an hour, although the case had been dismissed.

^* : I really do not see how the hon. Member can make the Home Secretary responsible.

said he would pass from that subject to the question of capital, punishment. A constituent of his had committed murder, and he feared that great responsibility rested upon him, inasmuch as he might not have put the case properly before the Home Secretary in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise the prerogative of mercy.

^* : I absolutely decline to discuss that question, or to say one word as to the advice I offered to the Sovereign in the matter.

said that, with great respect, he recognised the responsibility of the Home Secretary in the matter, and he was sure his right hon. friend had discharged his duty exceedingly well. But he hoped that some legislation would be introduced.

^* : Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the question of legislation, which cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

[Mr. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Par-tick) in the Chair.]

said that the Home Secretary usually acted with so much discrimination and caution in answering questions put to him, and with so much candour and frankness generally, that he rose very reluctantly to complain, in the first place, that the right hon. Gentleman had appointed monoglot-speaking Englishmen as mines inspectors in Wales; and in the second place, of the somewhat evasive answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to a question put by him on the subject. Until quite recently there were in North Wales two chief inspectors of mines; one was Mr. Hall who was now chief inspector, but who had previously been only chief inspector under the Coal Mines Regulation Act. The other chief inspector was Dr. Foster, who was appointed chief inspector under the Metalliferous Mines Act, and he had charge of the metalliferous mines and quarries in North Wales. Dr. Foster was appointed twenty-nine years ago and Mr. Hall twenty years ago. With reference to them, no complaint could be made because, before the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, it was not compulsory for an inspector to understand the Welsh language, but that Act provided that candidates for the position of inspector in Wales and Mon-mouth, who spoke the Welsh language and were equally qualified with other candidates, should be preferred. In 1894 the Metalliferous Act placed the appointment of inspectors under that Act in exactly the same position as similar appointments under the Act of 1887. After those Acts had been passed, even assistant inspectors who had a knowledge of the Welsh language and were equally qualified with other candidates, were entitled to preference. In the spring of the present year Dr. Foster, the chief inspector under the Metalliferous Mines Act, resigned, and it became necessary to appoint a successor. Instead of appointing one of the Welsh-speaking assistant inspectors, or even advertising for candidates, Mr. Hall, the chief inspector of coal mines, was appointed inspector under the Metalliferous Mines Act for the whole of North Wales. He had not a word to say against Mr. Hall as a coal mines inspector; he was an eminently qualified man and a personal friend of his own, and he did not think it possible to find a more competent man as a coal mines inspector in the United Kingdom; but Mr. Hall had no experience of metalliferous mines or of quarries. Yet, in the face of the two Acts he had mentioned, Mr. Hall was appointed, although he could not speak the Welsh language. He asked the Home Secretary a question on the subject on the 14th June, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that in consequence of Dr. Foster's retirement he had decided to rearrange the work and the districts of the mines inspectors, that the general charge of North Wales had been given to Mr. Hall, and that the ordinary work of inspection would be carried on by Dr. Foster's assistants, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones, who were both Welsh speaking. On the same day the right hon. Gentleman was asked a question with regard to South Wales, and he stated that the South Wales district had been divided into two, as the work of the district had increased enormously, and that one portion of it would be discharged by the existing inspector in South Wales and the remainder by an inspector who had been set free by rearrangements elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman added that he did not propose to make any new appointment, that no vacancy had occurred, and that he had been merely rearranging matters. He was amazed at that answer. It seemed to him to be an evasion of the law by a miserable and somewhat undignified subterfuge. The right hon. Gentleman said that no vacancy had occurred. If he had the appointment of a professor in the university, and if the professorships of, for instance, Hebrew and mathematics were held by different men, one of whom resigned, would the appointment of the other professor as professor in both subjects be an appointment or a rearrangement? Or assuming that the office of the Home Secretary or the Colonial Secretary was vacant through resignation, and that the Government thought that the Minister who had not resigned could fill both offices, and accordingly appointed him, would that be an appointment or simply a rearrangement? Or take the case of two adjoining houses occupied by two different tenants; if one tenant left and the landlord accepted the other as tenant of both houses, would that be a new tenancy or simply a rearrangement? How, therefore, could the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the appointment of a successor to fill the position vacated by Dr. Foster's resignation was not a new appointment, and therefore did not come under the Act. It was pleaded that in South Wales there had been no new appointment, but merely a rearrangement. Why could not someone who knew Welsh have been appointed to the district newly created? He had nothing to say against Mr. Hall, but the appointment was an illegal one. The law officers of the Crown, if consulted, would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the appointment came under the Acts of 1894 and 1887. He had absolutely no fault to find with Mr. Hall except that he could not understand a single word of Welsh, and that he had not had any experience either of the Metalliferous Mines Act or of the Quarries Act. The appointment created a very dangerous precedent. If, when an Act of Parliament provided that men appointed to certain positions should have certain qualifications, that provision was disregarded by the Home Secretary, it might lead to very serious consequences. This was a matter of great importance to monoglot-speaking Welshmen, of whom there were about 15,000 in the Carnarvonshire and Merionethshire districts, and he hoped that even now it might not be too late for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, and appoint someone in accordance with the terms of the Acts of 1894 and 1887 who knew the language spoken by the bulk of the quarrymen.

Attention called to the fact that forty members were not present. House counted, and forty members being found present—

called the attention of the Home Secretary to a case in the Worship Street Police-court, where it was alleged that a cell in Holloway Prison was in such a verminous condition that a female prisoner could not sleep at night, that she had to be attended by the doctor, and that the magistrate had, in consequence of her sufferings, reduced the amount of bail. He was certain it would not for a moment be suggested that even guilty persons should be put into dirty and verminous cells, but in this case they were persons who, not having been convicted, were in the eyes of the law presumably guiltless. Reference had been made to the fact that numbers of prisoners were kept in prison awaiting trial for as long as eight weeks, and if the condition of the cells at Holloway was as had been described, a similar condition of affairs probably prevailed at other gaols throughout the Kingdom. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make a strict inquiry into the matter, and, if the statements were correct, make the governor, or whoever might be responsible, completely answerable for such a disgusting state of affairs.

raised the question of the special allowances granted to the Metropolitan Police, and to the refusal of the Home Office to allow such special allowances to count towards pension. The question had recently been raised by an action in the Court of Appeal, and, though that action was brought by a constable who for many years was employed in the precincts of the House of Commons, the matter applied also to the police employed in picture galleries, museums, and other public buildings. There was also the class who received extra pay for good conduct. In relation to forces outside London, application had several times been made to permit such special allowances to count towards pension, and on no occasion had the Home Secretary replied to a local force that such allowances could not be so counted. ["Speak up !"] Even within the Metropolis there had been cases in which police-constables had been allowed to reckon special allowances towards pension, and there were cases of ex-superintendents who at the present moment were drawing pensions calculated on a higher scale of pay. The whole question resolved itself into, What is annual pay?—and it seemed very hard that men who for years might be receiving 4s., 5s., or even more per week in the way of special allowances should not be allowed to count those sums in their annual pay. The additional cost in pensions would not, he thought, be very large, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his earnest consideration.

^* drew attention to the fees paid to medical witnesses for attendance at police-courts and assizes. It was an old question that had never yet received adequate or proper consideration. The fees were fixed so far back as 1858, and, having regard to the difference in the value of the guinea now, he thought there were good grounds for complaint. The rate of pay for medical witnesses in England was for a police-court attendance 10s. 6d. a day; but this was not certain, for there were instances where the magistrate had said he had not the funds for such a payment. When a case was sent to assizes or sessions the payment was a guinea for a day's attendance, with an allowance of 2s. if the witness had to stay in the town for the night. A medical man of his acquaintance was offered £2 19s. 6d. for a long day's attendance at a police-court and two other long days at sessions, including his second-class railway fare. His friend returned the cheque, considering it almost an insult to be offered such a sum. For similar service a medical man in Scotland would receive six guineas.

Because the Scotsman is the better man.

^* : An Irish doctor, his brain being so much superior, would receive a guinea for three hours, or two guineas for a day of six hours, and a couple of guineas for attendance as witness in an adjoining town. It was an indefensible system, and various Home Secretaries had had the matter before them. When the right hon. Member for East Fife was Home Secretary he agreed that the remuneration was inadequate, but he said an alteration would involve a revision of the whole scale of remuneration for professional witnesses, architects, surveyors, and such like. Medical men, however, invited inquiry, and a return would show that medical men far more than any other professional class figured as witnesses in trials. For a gentleman who had gone through an expensive education, to whom time was money, and who in his absence had to pay a locum tenens , the scale of payment was most unfair, and he pressed the consideration of this subject on the Home Secretary.

^* supported the view of the hon. Member for the Strand Division in regard to special allowances of policemen being allowed to count towards pension. The appointments to look after public buildings, and so forth, were generally made because of the special intelligence and good character of the officers appointed, and also often carried with them special duties outside the hours of ordinary police duty. Moreover, in taking up these appointments, the officers abandoned, to a large extent, the chances of promotion to higher rank in the service. The case, unfortunately, taken into the law courts was described by the judges as being a "hard case." He thought it was time the somewhat antiquated ruling of the Home Office should be reconsidered, especially as within the last two years, in consequence of the abandonment of special allowances for house-rent on the part of the Commissioners of Police, increased pay had been given, and the pensions were assessed upon that increased pay. He also desired to acknowledge the sympathy and courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman had always met those who were deeply interested in the question of the housing of the poor. He did not propose to enter into the question except to point out that this session had revealed how private legislation frequently and detrimentally affected the habitations of the wage-earners in London. Apparently small details in such measures were often of great importance in this connection, and he hoped the Home Secretary would carefully watch all proposals involving dishousing or rehousing that might come before Parliament. The point which he was anxious to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman was the desirability of establishing as a general rule of the serving upon local authorities simultaneously with the service upon the Secretary of State of the details of any scheme which might involve rehousing. The local authority should be cognisant of every scheme involving the rehousing of persons of the labouring class who might be displaced, because not only from their local knowledge might the local authority be able to point out to the Home Office desirable improvements in any such scheme, but they could also make representations to the Home Office should any proposal be made, such as for instance rehousing wholly or partly in another district, or for being released from rehousing on account of alleged sufficient accommodation in the district. This matter might appear a small one, but then why did railway companies strongly object to sending a copy to the local authority? The objection to this obligation could only point to one conclusion, namely, that submitting a copy of the scheme to the local authority considerably lessens their chances of obtaining the consent of the Home Office to some apparently innocent proposal which a thorough local knowledge of the facts would render impossible. Besides, such an obligation had been already imposed upon the London County Council and several railway companies, and therefore there could be no objection to make it a general rule. The hon. Member who had opened the discussion upon the subject of rehousing that evening had referred to the financial position attaching to the present arrangement with regard to the construction of workmen's dwellings. There was no doubt that the action of the Home Office in considering any scheme must be materially affected by the question of the repayment of the money which is involved.

I must point out that that is a question of legislation, and not of administration by the Home Office, and therefore the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

^* said he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, but inasmuch as the action of the Home Office must be affected by the financial aspect, they looked to the Home Secretary to give his attention to that subject. He also wished to refer to the treatment meted out to juvenile adults in prisons.

The question of the treatment of juvenile adults in prisons comes under the Prisons Vote, and therefore cannot be in order now.

^* said that he brought it forward under this Vote because the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister responsible for the prisons.

When a matter comes directly under another Vote it cannot be raised under this Vote.

^* said he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and would content himself with thanking the right hon. Gentleman for what he had already done in the matter.

said he desired to say a word or two in support of what had fallen from the hon. Member for the Strand Division of Westminster on the question of pensions given to the Metropolitan Police. The question resolved itself into whether it was possible to give these men a pension upon what was a special duty allowance. He had no doubt that the question affected policemen beyond those employed in the precincts of this House, but he would allude to those employed in this building to illustrate this point. These men were selected for special duty in the first place because they were men of good character and exemplary bearing—men who would be selected for promotion outside; but it was generally recognised that if they once accepted a position in this House they lost their chance of promotion, and in lieu of it got special duty allowance of 7s. a week. That 7s. a week was for the performance not only of police duty but also other duties which policemen were not called upon to perform, but which under the Act of 1893 were recognised as police duties. Every man who took permanent duty in this House was bound to qualify himself as a fireman, and under the Act of 1893 any duty of that kind which was taken over by a policeman was to be calculated as police service for pension. After twenty-five years service they were entitled to a pension of not less than two-thirds of their annual pay, and the question was whether that pay was to be the simple pay of the police constable or to be supplemented by the 7s. a week which the police would receive for special duty in the House. Any ordinary person would say that, whether that 7s. was paid under the name of special duty allowance or any other name, it should be reckoned as part of the pay upon which the pension was to be calculated, and when a similar question had arisen in the country forces and the forces outside the Metropolitan Police Force, the Home Secretary had sanctioned more than once a pension calculated upon this pay. The Metropolitan police therefore were under a distinct disadvantage with regard to pay as compared with the country forces, and not only as compared with the country forces, but as compared with the higher ranks of the Metropolitan Police Force, because the higher ranks of that force had a good service allowance of £25, which was calculated in their pay for pensions. That being so, the lower branch of the Metropolitan Police Force had, in his opinion, a real and substantial grievance. This question had been made the subject of a case which had been brought in the ordinary course before one of the legal tribunals of the country, which had decided adversely to the men. It was not for him to question the decision of that tribunal, but he desired to show that the opinion of the Court of Appeal was based upon the belief that it was in the power of the Home Secretary to make the special allowance part of the pay upon which the pension should be paid. It was in the absolute power of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by issuing a new warrant, to allow the special duty allowance of a permanent character to be reckoned as permanent pay; therefore it was in the power of the Secretary of State to issue a new warrant and place the men of the Metropolitan Police Force on the same footing as the country policeman and those in the superior grades of the Metropolitan Police Force. He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to be bound by the traditions of the Home Office in this matter, but to give it his personal consideration, and see whether, in the case of men who were selected for long service and for good character to take permanent position where there was little chance of promotion, he could not put those men in a position of equality with their fellow men in the country, and so carry out what he, at all events, believed to be the intention of the Police Pensions Act of 1890.

^* , referring to the problem of the housing of the working classes, in London, expressed gratitude to the Home Secretary for the way in which he had to deal with the subject. He desired to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the fact, however, that if there were certain restrictions in the Act of 1890 that were useful and necessary when the Act was passed, those restrictions had now become less necessary, because of the experience gained by the county council in that period. During those eleven years the question of housing the working classes in London had materially altered; many causes had combined to make the building of cheap houses far more difficult than it was; there was the increase of wages, the increase in the value of building material, the increase in the rates, and in. London the inequality of the rates, which made it possible to build cheap houses in one part of London, and almost impossible to build them in another part. In Poplar the rates were 9s. 4frac12;d. in the £, and in St. Pancras 6s., the extra rates in the one case being just sufficient to raise the rents to prevent the poor of London finding cheap houses, with the result that only the well-to-do portion of the working classes could afford to live in them. There were cases in which, if laud were to be presented as a free gift to the municipality, it would scarcely be possible to build houses upon it, and to charge rents which would bring the accommodation within the reach of the lower portions of the population. Another difficulty had reference to the compounding of the rates. In the construction of houses for the working classes they must have regard not only to what was the best kind of house, but also as to what were the conditions of the people whom they were trying to rehouse, and he urged that, if they could give these people cleaner and better houses, they ought not be ashamed to be building them—houses which, although they might not be palaces, would, at least, be better than the kind of houses that these poor people had been in the habit of living in. He thought if they could reduce, even by a shilling or sixpence a week, some of the rents by relaxing some of the restrictions, they should be doubly assisted, because the lower the cent the fewer the empties. The hon. Member for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire had referred to two schools of thought, one of which was of opinion that the local authorities should provide for the well - to - do working classes, and the other that they should build houses for the lower strata, but the hon. Member knew how difficult that was to do. Through those restrictions, many of which could be removed by the Home Secretary, they were gradually being forced into building houses for the people who could be housed by other methods, and who could be housed, he believed, by private enterprise. If they were going to take on their shoulders the whole of this building and housing they would be confronted with a most gigantic task, and would have to neglect the interests of those poorer people for whom they might build. Some of the demands of the Home Office very often went further than those of the Building Act of 1894. They were almost unnecessary, and their effect was to increase the cost of building and the rents charged, with the result that they were forced to house a class of people who really did not feel the necessity for their intervention so much as other classes. They might be told they were trying to place a burden on posterity; but what was the burden? According to their present arrangements, in sixty years from now the ratepayers of London would be enjoying a profit of £27,000 out of the houses which had been already built. Though they ought to be fair to posterity, and not lay too heavy a burden upon it, he thought to present it with an income of £27,000 was rather too noble a gift. It must be remembered that municipalities had laid upon themselves the self-denying ordinances that the charge for these houses must not come out of the rates, and the rents must be equal to paying all outgoings and repairs as well as interest on sinking fund. But there was always the danger that if the regulations were too rigorously administered that party might gain strength which was in favour of paying a portion of the rent out of the rates, and that would be disastrous to the future of municipal housing. If the Home Secretary would give them a little more freedom from restriction when the plans under Part I. of the Act came before him, and if he would consider fairly the question of giving them more time for the repayment of their debts, he believed that, with the experience that had been gained in the last eleven years, a great step might be taken towards the proper housing of the working classes of London. Hon. Members opposite had referred to the necessity of heroic legislation. It was only eleven years ago since this great Act was passed, and they did not want heroic legislation to deal with this j matter. In his opinion all that London and the great municipalities needed was the relaxation of a few restrictions and a little more liberty to deal with the matter in their own way.

^* : A great many interesting questions have been raised, and if the Committee will permit me I will take those of the lesser importance first, and leave those of greater moment to the last. My hon. friend the Member for the Abercromby Division called attention to the question of fees for medical witnesses. I am bound to say from the figures he quoted the remuneration given under the existing rule does not seem to me to be extravagant, and that perhaps stands out in greater relief from the fact that in Scotland, which is celebrated for economical administration, the fees given are considerably greater; and I admit also that these matters were fixed many years ago, and there have been some changes since then. But while the amount of the remuneration is small, it must be remembered that the cost of prosecution is great, and we ought to be extremely careful in increasing it. I will promise, however, to take the subject into consideration. At the same time I must say that you cannot take into account merely one class of witnesses, but that we must take into account the whole scale—rather a formidable undertaking.

My hon. friends the Members for the Strand Division and for Horsham brought up the question of the claims that had been made of pensions on allowances made for special service to the police. I think it ought to be understood at once that, from all the information in my possession, this is not a claim which is put forward by the existing police or with which they desire to identify themselves.

May I ask whether they have been informed that it would not be to their advantage to identify themselves with it?

^* : Certainly not. I have had no communication whatever with them. We are greatly indebted to the police who are on duty in this House for the great attention and consideration which they show and the great assistance which they give to hon. Members. From the information I have, they seem to be satisfied with their position, and they may well be. There is a great desire on the part of the police to be engaged on this special service. It is quite true that they may lose some chances of promotion as compared with men who are on duty outside, but they receive extra remuneration of a shilling a day, and the kind of service is considered attractive. So far as the general pay and pensions of the police are concerned, I do not think there is the slightest ground for complaint. The pay is not quite so high in the Metropolis as in the City, but it is higher than in any other part of the kingdom. After twenty-six years of service a constable, at an age when he is still capable of performing many duties which people desire to have performed, receives a pension of two-thirds of his pay, which is equal to about 22s. 6d. a week, and it would be difficult to satisfy the wishes of a man who said that this was a shabby or inadequate arrangement. Ever since 1864 it has been the rule that men appointed for special duty with an allowance should pay the superannuation deduction on their pay only. A constable prosecuted in the courts a claim to receive pension on his allowance, but judgment was given against him. We do not go to the judges to ask what we ought to do in matters of this kind. If they had known the whole circumstances of the case they probably would not have considered it a hard case at all. I maintain that it is not a hard case. After the figures I have given, hon. Members may judge for themselves on that point. In any case, I have gone very carefully into the whole question of police pensions and police pay, and I am not prepared to advise any increase whatever. I consider the amounts paid fair, just, and indeed liberal. If the hour was not so late I would point out that the cases of superintendents, to which reference has been made, are quoted under a misapprehension, and that the superintendents when they are pensioned are pensioned on their pay only, and not on their allowances.

asked whether it was not the fact that whereas under the Irish law an Irish policeman sometimes got as much as £1,000 out of the public rates for injuries received in arresting a drunken man, the Metropolitan Police were entitled to no such compensation.

^* : I believe that is under a special Act of Parliament, and I do not see what it has to do with the question of pay and allowances.

asked whether it was not the case that in many instances the Home Office had sanctioned the grant of pensions based on allowances of a fixed and permanent character in the country forces which had not been part of the ordinary pay.

^* : Any power which the Home Office has in regard to the matter in the country is of an extremely limited character. If the country forces are under a different arrangement with regard to pensions it is quite right and proper that they should get the amounts guaranteed to them. But no such condition of things exists in the Metropolis. There has been a distinct understanding since the Police Order of 1864—

Pardon me; that was before the Pension Act of 1890.

^* : That does not make any difference. The whole matter was settled in 1864, and the conditions have in no way changed since that time. It was then laid down that the pensions of 'the police were to be based on their pay, from which the superannuation allow- ance had been deducted, and not upon their special allowances, from which no superannuation allowance had been deducted.

^* pointed out that the special allowance for rent to the Commissioners of Police was now included under the Act of 1899 in the regular pay. the pension of these superior officers would be calculated on the increased pay, and that increased pay represented the equivalent of the rent allowance.

^* : I do not know the particulars to which the hon. Member refers, but this I do know, that the pensions were regulated by the Police Order of 1864. That Order has been carried out ever since, and the police know perfectly well the conditions under which they serve, so far as special allowances for special services are concerned. I repeat that I consider the pension allowances most adequate, and I cannot advise that, at the cost of the ratepayers —for that is what it comes to—they should be increased.

The hon. Member for Warrington has referred to what he described as the "filthy state" of Holloway Prison. I have seen in the newspaper a description similar to that which he gave, but I have not yet had an opportunity of inquiring into the matter. I certainly will inquire into it without delay. If such an evil exists, it ought to be remedied.

My hon. friend the Member for the Romford Division spoke of the Commissioner in the City, who, he thinks, is quite incapable, because he appears to have disagreed with my hon. friend in regard to some offence alleged to have been committed by my hon. friend in the running of a motorcar in the City. I have heavy responsibilities on my shoulders at the Home Office, and, having regard to the fact that the only duty I have in connection with the Commissioner in the City is to submit his name for approval, I can hardly be brought to book because my hon. friend and the Commissioner had a disagreement of the kind to which I have referred.

In regard to the question of hooliganism, I agree that in many cases the magistrates are apt to let these young ruffians off much too cheaply. But I think that that which is called "hooliganism" has been somewhat exaggerated In some minds everything which occurs at a street corner is put down as hooliganism. That it does exist to some extent is no doubt true, and the police have been instructed that when it is at all possible for them to do it they should proceed rather by indictment than by bringing these gentry before the magistrates. In more than one case that principle has been acted upon with most salutary results.

Then I come to the question of the appointment of inspectors in Wales. I am afraid I cannot go much further than I went when questions were addressed to me on the subject. The history of the matter is plain and simple. For a long time past it has been considered desirable that as opportunities occur the districts should be rearranged—some of them being too large, and others too small, some inspectors having too much to do, and others not enough. When Mr. Foster vacated his position the opportunity was taken to rearrange the district. The hon. Member for East Denbighshire says that in this rearrangement we made a new appointment. That is not so. Mr. Hall's district has been changed, and he has become the inspector of the district that Mr. Foster vacated, with a portion of another. It is quite true that in any new appointment we should be bound under the Act to consider whether there was a Welsh-speaking gentleman as efficient as any other who might be appointed, and, if we consider there was such a gentleman available, he should have the preference.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Mr. Hall was already an inspector under the Metalliferous Mines Act or the Quarries Act. 1894?

^* : Certainly. If the hon. Member reads the Act he will see that Mr. Hall was available. There was no new appointment. Even if there had been a new inspector appointed, there was no available Welshman who could for a moment be compared with Mr. Hall in point of qualifications; Therefore, if I had had to judge between the sufficiency and the efficiency of the various persons available, I should have been bound to say, having regard to the terms of the Act, that it was my duty to appoint Mr. Hall, as being by far the best man available. I am anxious to regard most strictly the Act of Parliament to which the hon. Member refers. There are a considerable number of sub-inspectors who do speak Welsh, and I should be glad if an opportunity presented itself, if there was a person available who could speak Welsh and who was as fully qualified as any other, to recommend the appointment of that person. But that state of things has not arisen. If it does arise, hon. Members may depend upon me not to ignore the responsibility which the Act of Parliament places upon my shoulders.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Mr. Hall—I am not speaking of his qualifications at all —has had any experience under the Metalliferous Mines Act or the Quarries Act?

^* : I adhere to the words I have used. For the position to which Mr. Hall was appointed he was by far the best man available. The hon. Member for the Arfon Division has asked me whether I would endeavour to alter the law, so as to give me the same responsibility with regard to the managers of metalliferous mines as to the managers of coal mines. He quoted the quarry dispute in Wales, and said that if those mines had been under the same rule as applies to coal mines, it would not have been possible to appoint the present manager. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but the hon. Member has stated that my predecessor gave an undertaking to prepare, if, indeed, he had not already prepared—

^* said that in August, 1899, it was stated in debate on the Home Office Vote by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor that there was already prepared at the Home Office a draft Bill to amend the Metalliferous Mines Act, with a view to having certificated managers similar to those under the Coal Mines Acts.

^* : There are many pigeon holes at the Home Office, and there are many Bills in those pigeon holes, which I confess I have not yet thoroughly explored, but I will look into the matter to which the hon. Member refers. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division has brought forward an unpleasant topic in as pleasant a way, I think, as could be done. He has given us a description of what I am sure all of us must agree in thinking are exhibitions of the utmost indecency—exhibitions which all of us believe would have the worst effect on people who are attracted by them. We all desire to do what we can to suppress these disgusting exhibitions, and, if possible, to punish those who exhibit these things. The hon. Member when he previously referred to the matter invited me to try to find time to see these things for myself. He referred me to the Strand. I paraded up and down the Strand one whole afternoon, and detected nothing. I spent the best part of this Bank Holiday in trying to find these things in the Vale of Health, and although I saw many of these little picture boxes, surrounded by people, and spent several pennies, I did not see a single thing that I could object to. They were chiefly pictures of public buildings, and occasionally a picture of a ballroom and ballet pictures, which did not shock me in the least. I mention this because the hon. Member for St. Pancras gave me an awful description of what could be found in the Vale of Health.

said that all the pictures were not alleged to be in the Vale of Health. They were seen by a clergyman who lived at Hampstead, but some of them were at seaside resorts.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had referred him to Coventry Street, which was only two minutes walk from the Home Office.

^* : I am afraid I forgot about Coventry Street, or I should certainly have gone there instead of going to Hampstead, which is a long way off. But I wanted, particularly to see the Vale of Health, because I understood the description handed to me was of the pictures to be seen there. I found absolutely nothing there to complain of. The hon. Member for Hampstead said the objectionable pictures in the Vale of Health were removed long ago. Even if that be the case, the statements of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division are of much too serious a character for me to pass over lightly. I can assure him that I shall put myself in communication with the proper authorities and endeavour to ascertain whether, if these exhibitions continue, they can be properly dealt with in the interest of public morality and decency.

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should invite the chairmen of the two companies to see him about the matter, and, if possible, get them to suppress the pictures in their exhibitions.

^* : I must consider what will be the best method to adopt. With regard to the housing of the working classes, no question of greater importance could be brought before the attention of Parliament. The evils connected with overcrowding are too well known, and are of too glaring a character to admit of the smallest doubt. All of us would gladly join in some effort to mitigate, to however small an extent, those evils. But the matter is one of profound difficulty. I have long taken a deep interest in this matter, not only as President of the Local Government Board in 1888 and 1890–1, when I introduced legislation dealing with the subject, but also as a member of the Guinness Trust, of which for some time I was chairman. I have seen the good work done by that body, and the example it set has been followed by various local authorities throughout the country. Our original idea was to demonstrate that houses could be provided at low rents without involving any charge upon the rates. That is a task which I think we may fairly claim to have accomplished. None of the people housed in our dwellings earn, I believe, more than 20s. or 21s. a week, and out of the rent we put aside money for a sinking fund and to pay the interest on the outlay. We have adopted the principle of endeavouring to build the houses to suit the class we desire to house. We understood that these poor people lived in small, uncomfortable, insanitary dwellings, and we thought it was desirable to give them comparatively small but sanitary houses at a rent they were able to pay, and we have accomplished that object. I agree that the matter has passed beyond the power of private enterprise to deal with. The assistance of the local authorities must be brought in if anything adequate is to be done. Even then there will probably be great difficulty in keeping pace with the increasing demand for houses of that kind year by year. Hon. Members have referred to certain points which, if attended to, they think would assist in the solution of this problem. An extended period for repayment has been suggested. I have expressed my views on this subject. I have said it is a matter which deserves consideration. I agree with everything that has been said as to the desirability of giving greater facilities to local authorities in regard to borrowing, but the amount of local debt is now so enormous that I am sure all will agree that every precaution consistent with the proper carrying out of the duty of the authorities should be taken to prevent that debt becoming unduly great. I know that the President of the Local Government Board, with whom this matter rests much more than with me, is carefully considering the matter and obtaining information on specific points from all the local authorities throughout the country. He has indicated in unmistakable terms that he hopes to be able at no remote period to introduce legislation dealing with the subject. When I was at the Home Office there was a considerable difference of opinion between myself and the then Home Secretary as to who was entitled to introduce legislation en this matter, and I stubbornly contended that it was the President of the Local Government Board. The matter was referred to Mr. W. H. Smith, who pronounced in favour of the Local Government Board. Therefore, however much I might wish to have another hand in legislation of that kind, I am afraid my action on that occasion entirely prevents me putting forward any claim to such participation. But I know hon. Members have entire confidence in my right hon. friend, and that he will bring forward a Bill by which he will endeavour to deal with the question in a manner as satisfactory as possible. Reference has also been made to Home Office regulations, and certain modifications have been suggested. I have considered whether any modifications might be made in the requirements of the Home Office, and I now propose to take advice on the subject. If I can see my way in any degree to meet the wishes which have been expressed to-night, and still secure the efficiency we all desire, I need hardly say it will give me great pleasure to do so. I think I have now dealt with all the topics which have been raised, and I hope that without prolonged discussion we may be allowed to take the vote.

said the question of the oil used in the lamps of poor people was one of great importance, and should not be overlooked. The Home Secretary was not doing his duty unless he had these oils tested in order that the poor people might be sure they were receiving a proper article-Certainly the traders would not see to that point. The duty of the trader was to sell the oil, but it was the duty of the Home Office to see that the proper stuff was supplied. Many valuable lives had been lost owing to the use of inferior oil and bad lamps, and he hoped the right hon Gentleman would give the matter his serious attention. The hon. Member then complained that practically all the gentlemen who examined Irish candidates for appointments under the Home Office were Scotsmen. He urged that at least one of the examiners should be an Irishmen. He also referred to the fact that, while the fines obtained under the Explosives Act during the year amounted to only £31, the cost of obtaining thos fines amounted to £349. If a couple of Irish removables were brought over there was not the slightest doubt the loss on such prosecutions could be brought to an end, and Ireland would be glad to spare the magistrates for such a purpose.

said it was a great injustice that when ex-soldiers joined the police force their service in the Army was not counted towards their pensions. Men who joined the police force after serving in some other branch of the Civil Service were not placed under that disqualification, and in every part of the country ex-soldiers who served in the police felt it was a hardship that their service with the colours did not count. He should have thought that men who had learnt discipline and obedience in the Army were particularly suited for the police force. At all events, at a time when recruits were wanted for the Army, it was very curious that so great an inducement as the assurance that their time with the colours would count towards a pension if they afterwards joined the police should be withheld. Doubtless there were difficulties in the matter, but he believed they could easily be got over. The matter deserved the attention of the Government, and he hoped the grievance would be remedied.

called attention to the Factory Acts as administered in Ireland. Satisfaction was not felt in Ireland as to the way the Factory Act was enforced there, especially in Dublin. The Irish Trade Union Congress had, at its meeting in Sligo, passed resolutions urging the Government to insist on the Act being more adequately carried out, and to appoint a female factory inspector in Ireland, and he hoped one would be appointed.

thought that the appointment of a female factory inspector in Ireland was well worthy of attention. A Board of Trade inquiry had been held in reference to the loss of a ship off the Irish coast last December, when thirty-three persons were drowned. The relatives of these men who had lost their lives naturally wanted to be represented at the inquiry, and instructed a solicitor to appear for them, but the solicitor was not allowed to address the court of inquiry. That had caused a great deal of dissatisfaction, and a number of the relatives had complained bitterly to him about the matter. When questioned on the subject, the right hon. the Home Secretary said that he did not desire to offer an opinion, but so far as he knew the court had the power to refuse to hear a representative of the persons drowned. He wanted to know if that was the law, and whether the right hon. Gentleman considered it desirable or fair that these people should be denied a hearing at the inquiry, and whether he could not bring influence to bear that in future representatives of the drowned people in the loss of a ship might be heard at the court of inquiry.

^* said that he had nothing to add to the reply which he had formally given. The court of inquiry was held for the purpose of having any light possible thrown on the cause of the loss of the ship and the loss of life, and he was quite sure that the court would receive any evidence which might elucidate all the facts of the case. But he had no power to order any court of inquiry to hear any particular person. As to lady inspectors for Ireland, these lady inspectors were not allocated to particular posts. They were mainly resident in London, and were available to be sent wherever their services might be required. The system had worked hitherto very well. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, the appointment of lady inspectors was of comparative recent origin, and they had been increased from two to seven.

said that his complaint was that the Factory Act was not working satisfactorily in Ireland.

^* said that if there was dissatisfaction on that account in Ireland that might be a valid reason for increasing the number of lady inspectors generally. He could not undertake to say that a lady inspector would be specially appointed to reside in Ireland, but the question of the strength of the staff would be reconsidered when the Factory Bill of the present session became law.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

said he wished to call attention to the number of temporary messengers and boy messengers at the Home Office. It seemed to him that money was spent in the wrong direction and that every member and every hanger-on of the Government wanted to take as much money as they could out of the unfortunate taxpayers; and that the expenditure was increasing by leaps and bounds.

Question put, and agreed to.

Class I

2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."

said that several hon. Members had put down on the Paper Amendments for the reduction of this Vote, for the purpose of raising the question of increased accommodation in the House. Even in these days of heavy taxation, when they were called upon to vote 150 millions for carrying on the war in South Africa, seven and a half millions for civil administration in the Transvaal, and many millions for Uganda, the least the Government might be expected to do was to make this House tolerably comfortable, seeing that they so frequently kept Members up half the night, and sometimes, as on Friday, the whole night. He did not want luxury of any kind in the House of Commons, but he thought they were entitled to have the conditions under which they were compelled to live there made as little insanitary and deadly as possible. They heard a great deal of insanitary dwellings, but the House of Commons was as insanitary a dwelling as they could find anywhere except in the very purlieus of the city. The atmosphere of the rooms upstairs was absolutely poisonous, and the same might be said of the smoking-room and the dining-room. He was informed by the Kitchen Committee, too, that the accommodation provided for the servants would be a positive disgrace to any private house. The accommodation was utterly inadequate for their work; the servants were compelled to stand between two gigantic fires, and it was no wonder that the cooking of the food was shamefully bad. He did not find fault with the servants, but the best food in the world would be spoiled unless they were provided with proper accommodation for its preparation. He would be glad to hear from the First Commissioner of Works a statement as to the steps he proposed to take to improve the ventilation and increase the accommodation in the House.

said he wished to join in the representation of his hon. friend as to the lack of proper accommodation for hon. Members who had to spend their time in the House and who had not the privilege of a pair. On many occasions the food was badly cooked, and the ventilation was wretched. He concurred with the hon. Member for East Mayo in regretting that better accommodation was not provided for Members of the House, and he hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would now be able to announce that the structural alterations recommended by the Committee would be carried into effect.

said the arrangements for the accommodation of, Members of the House were very defective. The Committee who inquired into this matter had recommended various alterations which, if carried out, would be of the greatest possible benefit, and he sincerely hoped that these recommendations, which were approved by the First Commissioner of Works, and made unanimously by the Committee, would be carried into effect as quickly as possible. The kitchen of the House was in a perfectly intolerable state; the dining-room accommodation was perfectly inadequate, and the smoking- room accommodation was even worse. A gentleman from the Board of Works told him that it would be impossible to ventilate the smoking-room satisfactorily if it was to be occupied by more than forty people at a time. It was seldom that it did not contain eighty. The cost of making the necessary alterations would be comparatively trifling, and he hoped the First Commissioner of Works would take steps to have the work done during the recess.

said Members who came there so many months of the year ought at any rate to be made comfortable. He concurred with what had been said by previous speakers as to the inadequacy of the accommodation. Besides the rooms already mentioned, there were the post office of the House, which was not as good and as healthy as a grocer's shop in a country town, and the telegraph office, which he described as a den. He understood that it was so oppressive and trying a place in hot weather that the employees could only remain there an hour at a time. Both these places should be made more satisfactory and comfortable. He further suggested that improvements should be made in the reporters' gallery and the ladies' gallery. It was a perfect scandal that the grill in front of the ladies' gallery should be permitted to remain. In the House of Lords ladies were accommodated in the side galleries, and he thought that in the House of Commons better accommodation than the present should be provided for them.

said he understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to say the other day that the work for the increased accommodation in the House recommended by the Committee could not be commenced until an Estimate had been put before the House and approved of next year. That would involve two years delay, which he thought would be a great misfortune. He thought the House would agree that the improvements recommended by the Committee should be carried out at once. There were precedents for this. Only the other night they had discussed a Vote of two millions for the Pacific Cable, the contract of which had been entered into before the Vote was passed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, seeing the House generally was in favour of the increased accommodation, see that the work was undertaken at once.

said he quite agreed that the accommodation for Members was very defective, and that in four or five Departments of the House there was great crowding. There was only dining accommodation for 140 Members, yet one night recently as many as 300 Members had to obtain their dinners in the building. The accommodation in the smoking-room was equally deficient, and in the winter months it was often quite impossible to obtain a seat after waiting for hours. He was very anxious indeed to see these things remedied, but it was even more necessary to improve the apartments in which the officials of the House worked. The conditions under which the telegraph operators and the messengers worked he thought was a scandal. There was a strong feeling in the House that too much was done for the guests and not enough for working members of the House. When the existing accommodation was provided, and ladies were permitted to dine downstairs, it was not intended that Members should give dinners for fourteen and sixteen people constantly during the session, and crowd out those who wished to use the House for business purposes. He would endeavour to see whether, without waiting for a Vote next year, that portion of the Report relating to the proper provision for the working members and the officials of the House could be undertaken this year. He could not give any stronger pledge than that.

thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory enough as far as it went; and he hoped that during the recess he would be able to carry out that portion of the Report for the improved accommodation for Members in the smoking and dining-rooms, and for the telegraphists. He hoped also that the. right hon. Gentleman would secure proper accommodation for the messengers of the House, who had nowhere to go to for refreshment or meals. The First Commissioner of Works had said that he hoped to do certain things, but the Committee, before allowing the Vote, should get a proper understanding of what would be done.

said the Committee who inquired into the matter were shocked by the evidence they got as to the insanitary condition of the committee-rooms upstairs. He hoped something would be done to remedy that.

said the Committee-rooms were absolutely poisonous. The windows would not open at the top, and when they were open at the bottom Members immediately shut them because they complained of the draught. He suggested that the windows should be so arranged that they could be opened at the top. By this means the ventilation could be greatly improved.

said the statement of the First Commissioner of Works was satisfactory so far as it went, but he was sorry that it did not go a little bit further. He urged that something should be done to improve the ladies' gallery, which was a most abominable place. The accommodation was atrocious, and there was no ventilation at all. He did not see that any great harm would ensue if the grill were taken away. He was sure a majority of the Members of the House would be in favour of an alteration in that direction.

suggested that doors should be added behind the gangways to facilitate egress to the ''Aye" and the "No" lobbies.

called attention to the fitting up of the Royal Gallery for the trial of Earl Russell. He understood that the cost of the work was £350. This was n senseless, wanton, and profligate waste of public money. The trial might have been held in the magnificently up- holstered chamber of the House of Lords. The expense of fitting up the Royal Gallery had been incurred at the instance of the Lord Great Chamberlain without in the slightest degree consulting the representatives of the people about it. He wanted to know what became of the benches, the green cloth, and the canopy provided for the occasion. Under an old system the Lord Great Chamberlain could claim these as his perquisites. He believed that officer did claim them. He was anxious to know how much money had been spent on red tape and green cloth for this semi-judicial procedure, for it seemed to him there had been a reckless disregard of the people's money.

said he was not responsible for the expenditure on the preparation of the Royal Gallery for the trial. His instructions had been received from the Committee in the House of Lords, presided over by the Lord Chancellor. The court had been prepared in a suitable way, and no extravagant expenditure had been incurred. The original estimate of £350 for that purpose had proved to be more than was necessary. The actual cost of the trial was £210, of which £140 was for furniture, and £70 for structural alterations. The fittings were now in his charge.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

moved that the amount be reduced by the sum of £23,250, the amount of the loan for the harbour of Eyemouth, a loan which he submitted had been made with great carelessness.

beseeched the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a more generous treatment to Ireland in regard to these loans. The same treatment ought to be meted out to Ireland as had been given to Scotland. He should like to know why there should not be a remission of that rate of interest representing 60 per cent. per annum.

^* : I explained when this resolution was considered in Committee the circumstances of the loan to the harbour commissioners. I did not conceal from the Committee that I thought the interest on that loan very unsatisfactory, and it is indeed perfectly evident that the security on which it was advanced was altogether insufficient, but I submit that what the House has now to consider is what is the best course to take some fifteen or sixteen years after the loan was made. In the face of the facts, which now present themselves for our consideration, it is perfectly evident that in its present condition this harbour cannot remain. It has failed to realise the expectations of those who carried it out, and on which the Loans Commissioners sanctioned the loan. The income is very much less than was expected, and in addition to that even with the present revenue no one can be found to advance any money for fresh purposes so long as this loan stands in the way. Under these circumstances we have not accepted the proposal made to us. We were in danger of having the harbour thrown on our hands and we did not think we could make it successful. We were asked to accept an offer of a sum down on condition that the harbour commissioners would be relieved of the rest of the loan. The hon. Gentleman complains that in this matter we are treating Ireland unfairly as compared with England. Eye-mouth harbour is in Scotland, and not in Ireland. Something was said about this in Committee, and I have taken the trouble to see how much has been written off on loans during the past five years previous to this. During these five years nothing has been written off on account of English loans. The sum of £4,241 has been written off for Scotch loans, and against that the sum of £86,518 has been written off for Irish loans.

asked when the loans for the £86,000 were granted.

^* : The sum was contracted at different times.

Are they forty or fifty years old?

^* : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know when the principal sums were contracted I will get the information for him, but it does not appear to me to be important. The fact is that during the past five years Ireland has received remissions of no less than £86,000 against £4,200 in Scotland. I think Irish gentlemen will see that Ireland has not come off worse than other parts of the United Kingdom in this respect. The hon. Member for North Kerry referred to a matter which is not contained in this Bill at all. It was settled, I think, before I came to the Treasury. It is the duty of the Treasury in all cases where it can to secure the taxpayer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Treasury in charging a rate of 60 per cent, is giving fair treatment?

^* : I was not aware that the matter referred to was not contained in the Bill now before the House. It is not in order to discuss it.

said the Irish loans which had been referred to as having been written off were contracted sixty or eighty years ago in times of jobbery. He complained of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury saying that debts had been written off, when, as a general rule, it would be found that these were gross jobs for which the Irish people were' in no way responsible.

said the Irish Members did not object to the debts for Swinford and Belmullet being cancelled, but they objected to the resolution which was brought forward a few days ago being drawn in such a way as to make no mention of Eyemouth, Scotland, in respect of which there was also to be a remission. It was not the proper way to treat the House. The greater portion of the remissions for Swinford and Belinullet were in respect of interest. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury might show a little more of the spirit of generosity.

^* : I can assure the hon. Member that there was no desire whatever to be unfair to Ireland in the form of the resolution. If it did not clearly express that, the larger portion of the debt was for interest. I can only express my regret, and say that care will be taken that it shall not happen again. I do not know the facts of the case referred to by the hon. Member for North Kerry, but if he will bring j them before me I will look into the matter.

I shall gladly comply with the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

said that since the Bill had been last before the House certain developments had taken place which had given rise to serious considerations, and he thought the First Lord of the Treasury should consent to the adjournment of the debate. [Cries of "No, no."] In any case, if the last stage of the Bill was to be taken it would not be without the emphatic protest of Members on that side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be able to explain to the House the exact position as to the Loan and how long he would be able, with the Loan, to carry on the war. He knew there was an idea abroad that this Bill would cover all the demands of the Government for the war, but he did not believe that. Two years ago they were told that the war was to cost ten millions; then it was said that thirteen millions more would be sufficient to complete the campaign; but, so far as could be ascertained, no less than 147 millions had been spent on the war. They were told that the present cost of the war was between a million and a quarter and a million and a half per week, and if that were so he would like to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to get on for money if the war lasted three months longer. Would it be necessary for him to call Parliament together in order to make fresh provision for the war? So far as he was personally concerned he objected to spending a single penny on the war, and he renewed at this final stage of the Bill his protest against the war expenditure and the method by which it was being paid for. It was all very well for the Government and their supporters to go to the constituencies and wave flags, but it was dishonest to carry on this war at the expense of future generations. The people who shouted for the war ought to pay the cost at present. From first to last, and all the time, he had protested against the war, as the cost of it would bear heavily on the Irish people. There was not in Ireland the slightest glimmer of hope or expectation that they were going to get any return for their expenditure on the war; while a very considerable proportion of the money would be spent in England, which would go in wages to some extent. Of course it was not from that material point of view that they in Ireland protested against this expenditure. The vast majority of the people in that country had over and over again opposed the war by every means in their power as a hateful war, and it was an unreasonable and unjust thing to make them pay for it. The ruffianism which had necessitated this expenditure had been displayed not by the men who were defending their country and their homes, but by the men who were carrying out the orders and the policy of the Colonial Secretary by burning houses, destroying property, and imprisoning the wives and families of the Dutchmen who were fighting for their liberty. Outside of England and Scotland there was no portion of the civilised globe where the action of the Irish Members in opposing the war was not approved. The Colonial Secretary, in the speech which he delivered on Friday, indulged in certain sneers and gibes at the Irish Members of Parliament when he said that their action was prompted probably by the recollection of the palmy days of the Land League. In the palmy days of the Land League the, Colonial Secretary was apparently a friend, and certainly a suppliant for favour at the hands of that League. If there had been any change it had not; been in the ranks of the Irish Members I or their constituencies in Ireland, but in | the attitude of the Colonial Secretary, who commenced by denouncing this war.

^* : This is not relevant, and moreover the hon. Member is answering a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary which was delivered in the present session, but not upon this Bill.

said he would not pursue that line of argument further than to say that the speech to which he alluded furnished him with an additional reason why he took this opportunity to reassert his position on the Loans Bill and everything connected with it as being calculated to continue the war in South Africa. When in future days the will of the country and the tone of this House would be different, when these troubled times had passed into history, he believed it would be placed to the credit of the Irish nation and their representatives, that they opposed this war in the same way as the Irish nation opposed the unjustifiable attack upon American liberty. There were no better friends of that liberty then than the Irish nation, and no Minister who spoke more for it than the man who was now honoured by every politician in this country—Edmund Burke.

said the Nationalist Members could not allow this Bill to pass its last stage without registering one more vote against it. He adhered to the view which he expressed in Committee that this was a very vicious way of carrying on the finance of the country, and that it was entirely unprecedented. The Report of the Public Accounts Committee which had just been issued contained a paragraph deprecating the system of making payments simply with the sanction of the Treasury. While the Committee acknowledged that certain payments which were referred to in the Report were necessary under existing circumstances, they considered that they should not be made in future without the sanction of Parliament. That was not a mere question of Supply. It was the question of the relation of the Treasury to the great spending departments of the State. As far back as 1894-the Public Accounts Committee had protested against the War Office spending money without the sanction of Parliament and against the Treasury accepting the statement of the Secretary of State for War as a sufficient voucher.