Commons Sitting of 2 August 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to.
  Crown Lands Bill, Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill, Paisley Roads Order Confirmation Bill, Inverclyde Bequest Order Confirmation Bill, Perth Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to—Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords], Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING.)
  Petition from Halifax, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions from Higham Ferrers, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS.]
  Petitions from Rotherhithe, for alteration; to lie upon Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions from Derby, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND.)
  Copy presented, of Forty-second detailed Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST.)
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the President for 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LUNACY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland, being a Special Report on the alleged increase of Lunacy in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAR STORES IN SOUTH AFRICA (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission on War Stores in South Africa, together with Appendices and Minutes of Evidence (four volumes) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address March 13th; Mr. Lamont]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 302.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LIGHTS UPON VEHICLES).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address March 21st; Mr. Marnham]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 303.]
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (LONDON).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address March 27th; Mr. Talbot]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 304.]
  EDUCATION (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address April 4th; Mr. Thomas O'Donnel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 305.]
  ILLITERATE VOTERS (GENERAL ELECTION, 1906).
  Return presented relative thereto [Address May 9th; Mr. Crooks]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 306.]
  PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address May 14th; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 307.]
  MAGISTRATES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented relative thereto (Address May 14th; Mr. Bennett; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 308.]
  MIDWIVES.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address July 25th; Mr. Helme]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 309.]
  NAVAL EXPENDITURE (PRINCIPAL NAVAL POWERS).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered July 18th; Mr. Thomasson; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 310.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation Returns for 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 311.]
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Railway Regulation Act, 1893, during the year ended July 27th, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 312.]
  WALNEY LIGHT DUTIES.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered May 9th; Major Seely]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 313.]
  ARMY (SPECIAL PENSIONS).
  Return presented for the year ended March 31st, 1906, of Pensions specially granted under Articles 730, 1173A, and 1207 of the Pay Warrant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (REGIMENTAL DEBTS)
  Copy presented of Further Regulations under The Regimental Debts Act, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTEER BRIGADES.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address July 2nd; Sir Howard Vincent]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Registrar of the Land Registry for the years 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, as to the work of constructing a General Register of Title for the County of London [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  HIGHER EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the extent to which and the manner in which Local Authorities in England and Wales have applied funds to the purposes of Education other than Elementary during the year 1905–6 under any of the following Acts; Education Act, 1902; Welsh

  1321
  Intermediate Education Act, 1889; Public Libraries and Museum Acts; Local or Private Acts."—(Mr. Birrell.)

  POOR-RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Return ordered, "of Statement of the amount expended by boards of guardians for Poor Relief during the half year ended Lady-day, 1906; and similar Statement for the half year ended Michaelmas, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 325, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, &c., 1905–6.
  Return ordered, "of the amount received during the year ended 31st day of March, 1906, in respect of each administrative county and county borough in England and Wales for Local Taxation Licence Duties, and penalties and forfeitures recovered in respect of such duties, and for other duties and payments which are directed to be dealt with in the same manner as the Local Taxation Licence Duties (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 280, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return ordered, "of the amounts of all Public Revenue derived from taxes levied by Parliament, and from any other sources, which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1904–5, 1905–6, and 1906–7 (estimated), with the totals in each case (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 223, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Bowles.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether there are dormant ledgers kept at the Savings Bank Department: if so whether non-interest-bearing accounts, on which no actual transactions have taken place for a number of years, are transferred to these ledgers either regularly or from time to time; and whether interest-bearing accounts, on which no actual transactions have taken place for a number of years, are transferred to these ledgers either regularly or from time to time.
  1322
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There are ledgers kept at the Savings Bank Department to which non-interest bearing accounts which have not been operated on for a considerable period are transferred as opportunity arises. No such transfer takes place in the case of interest bearing accounts.

  Dublin City Mail Cars.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General when will the present contract for the conveyance of the mail by car in Dublin City expire; or have the present contractors a lease of the undertaking.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The contract for the mail cart services in Dublin will continue in force until one of the parties gives twelve months' notice to determine it.

  Dublin Mail Contractor.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state under what circumstances are officials of the General Post Office, Dublin, allowed to visit the mail contractors' premises; and if it is with the concurrence of the Postmaster-General that an officer of the General Post Office is in attendance at the contractors' office several evenings each week.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) My officers visit the contractors' premises whenever necessary; but it is not the practice for an officer to attend at the contractors' offices several evenings each week.

  Overtime in the Dublin Post Office.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will say the amount of overtime at present being performed in the Dublin General Post Office (postal and telegraph branches) from the 1st to the 20th of July; and if he can state the cause thereof.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the amount of overtime worked in the Dublin General Post Office, he will make arrangements to have the staff increased by placing on the establishment some, at least, of the learners at that office who are at present waiting over two years for appointments.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General will he say why the vacancies that exist on the sorting and telegraph branches in the Dublin General Post Office are not tilled up; and, considering that these vacancies have now existed for some time, that there are large numbers of learners still unappointed, and in view of the amount of overtime which is being worked, will he see the appointments are filled up forthwith.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I may, perhaps, be allowed to answer the hon. Member's three Questions on this subject together. The number of hours of overtime performed on week-days by the indoor force in the sorting and telegraph offices in Dublin from the 1st to the 20th July inclusive were 2,577 and 1,591 respectively. I regret the amount of overtime which has been necessary, the greater part of which was due to the withdrawal of officers for season pressure, for substituting officers on leave, and for loan to provincial offices, that is to say, to causes incidental to the summer season. The staff of the Dublin office is at present under revision, and I am not able to appoint the learners to established posts until the revision is completed.

  Purchases of the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of years' purchase paid by the Congested Districts Board for the various estates which they have acquired, and the date of each such purchase, indicating the area of each estate and the entire amount paid for it.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Except in the case of Glendale, the estates were bought after negotiation and the lowest possible price was paid. The figure given was not, therefore, a precise calculation of so many years purchase. For information on the other points alluded to by the hon. Member, I must refer him to page 9 of the Congested Districts Board Report for 1905–6.

  Scottish Local Government Board.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the Members of the Local Government Board of Scotland; who appoints them; and under what
  1324
  authority and under what conditions they hold office as to emoluments, meetings, expenses, and termination of office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The names of the appointed members of the Local Government Board are—Mr. J. Patten MacDougall, Vice-President; Mr. Ewan MacPherson; and Dr. Leslie MacKenzie. If the hon. Member will refer to Sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, he will find the rest of the information desired.

  Konia Bagdad Railway.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the extension of the Konia Bagdad Railway to Khor Abdullah which lies on the sea to the north-east of Koweit in the Persian Gulf; whether there is good anchorage at Khor Abdullah 8 to 10 fathoms deep within 300 yards of a bluff solid enough to bear the terminus of a great railway; and whether the British Fleet has surveyed Khor Abdullah, which belongs to the Sheik of Koweit.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I have no information as to whether any decision has been taken in regard to the extension of the Konia Bagdad Railway to Khor Abdullah. No proper survey of Khor Abdullah haw over been made by the British Fleet, and I have no information which would enable mo to make a statement as to the depth of water or the configuration of the land in that locality.

  British Concession at.Niu-chwang.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Concession on the north side of the river at Niu-chwang, granted in the spring of 1899, has over boon taken over; and whether it is now intended to take steps to complete the acquisition of the same.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) No report on the subject of the Concession has been received since April, 1899. The limits of the Concession were then still under discussion with the Chinese authorities. Inquiry is being made.

  Leigh Cockles.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the Fishmongers Company in stopping the sale at Billingsgate of all cockles from Leigh; whether he is aware that this was done in consequence of an allegation that a basket of bad cockles had originated from Leigh; whether he is aware that the basket from which the cockles alleged to have caused typhoid were supplied was not owned by any cockier at Leigh, and that the cockles at Leigh observe the regulations necessary for the protection of the public as laid down by Dr. Klein; and whether he proposes to take any action in regard to this exercise of authority by the Fishmongers Company, in view of the loss inflicted on the cockle fishermen at Leigh.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have communicated with the Fishmongers Company on this subject, and find that they have taken the action referred to in consequence of their being satisfied that the cockles at Leigh had not observed the regulations laid down by the company for the protection of the public. The company state that they have no information with reference to the basket of bad cockles referred to in the Question. I have no control over the company in the matter.

  Stobs Camp.
  SIR J. JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what arrangements were made by his predecessor in office at the time of creating rifle ranges at Stobs Camp for the safety of shepherds, farm servants, and other pedestrians using the public right of way and drove road crossing the slopes of Penchrise Pen from the River Slitrig to the Allan Water and Teviot Valleys; and whether the precautions provided by law in cases of dangerous proximity are applied at these ranges for the safety of persons using these ways.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) When firing is being carried out on the ranges danger flags and two look-out men are posted; the latter are in signal and telephonic communication with the
  1326
  firing points; and when persons wish to cross the range firing is stopped. No complaint has been received since the ranges were taken into use.

  Empire Day at Malta.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Empire Day, Colonel Fortescue, of Pembroke Camp, Malta, had his full band, who are almost entirely Protestants, playing at a Roman Catholic fête at the Jesuit College in Malta; and whether, seeing that the bandsmen themselves were unwilling to attend these proceedings, he can say by whose authority and for what reason they wore compelled to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No information has been received at the War Office as to the matters alleged in the Question.

  Artillery Experts' Reports.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table the Reports of Sir Frederick Stopford and other Artillery experts referred to by the Under-Secretary of State; and whether the entire approval of the Government's proposals with regard to the reduction of the Artillery expressed by these officers, extended only to the figures or to the principle of the changes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The answer to the first part of this Question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative on both points.

  Militia Uniform Contracts.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with the view of encouraging local industries, he will consider the question of placing at Inverness contracts for the furnishing of the Militia uniforms required in the Highlands, as has for many years been done by the Admiralty in the case of uniforms required by it for local use.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Uniforms are not provided specially for the Militia but for the Army generally. Tenders for the supply of material and

  1327

  the making up of uniforms are open to the whole country. At the present time upwards of thirty contracts for clothing and clothing material are running in Scotland. It would not be practicable to arrange for independent local provision of uniforms for Militia battalions.

  New Constitution for the Transvaal.
  SIR HENRY KIMBEE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in the Letters Patent intended to be granted by the Government to the Transvaal giving it self-governing powers, there will be contained any power to His Majesty to revoke or alter its terms afterwards; and, if there be no such express power in the grant, is there any constitutional law by which such a grant once made can be derogated from.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Answer to both Questions is in the negative.

  Native Prisoners in South African Mines.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Natal have proposed to let native political prisoners to mine-owners and other employers; whether his attention has been called to the declarations on the subject made by Lord Carnarvon when Secretary of State; and if further communications on the matter have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Natal since the assurances given by him to the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Natal Government have introduced a Bill permitting the employment of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for any period exceeding three months by contract between the Government authority and any municipality, or public body, or company, or individual. It does not therefore apply specifically to political prisoners. I have seen the statement of Lord Carnarvon. The Secretary of State is not aware that any assurances have been given that His Majesty's Government would interfere in a matter properly within the control of the Parliament of Natal and of the Ministers responsible thereto.

  Cork Registrar of Title.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland who is at present discharging the duties of registrar of title for the county of Cork, and at what, if any, rate of pay; who appointed such person; will he lay upon the Table a copy of the document under which such person was appointed; are fees charged to applicants for registration; and, if so, under what authority and to whom are same paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) Mr. Henry Wright is at present discharging the duties of registrar of title for the county of Cork pending the passing of the Bill now before Parliament. He is not receiving any special salary in respect of those duties, but is in receipt of the salary appointed for the office of Clerk of the Crown and Peace for the East Riding of the County Cork and City of Cork for the performance of the duties of those offices, including local bankruptcy. The Lord Chancellor is unable to recommend the payment of any salary to Mr. Wright as local registrar of title, nor would the Treasury assent to any such payment to him. Mr. Wright was appointed in succession to Mr. Standish O'Grady, but the law officers of the late Government advised that his appointment was irregular, as Mr. Wright was not qualified under the statute regulating the performance of the duties of the office, and the present Lord Chancellor takes the same view. I have no objection to laying upon the Table a copy of the document purporting to appoint him if the hon. Member should move for it. As regards the latter portion of the hon. Member's Question, no fees are charged for first registration in respect of purchases completed through the Land Commission since the 1st January, 1892, Section 23 (1) (b), of The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891. With regard to purchases completed before that date, fees are charged to all such applicants as did not apply for registration before the 1st of January, 1893, Section 22 (2). Fees are charged for all subsequent dealings with registered land under Section 8 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Consolidated Rules of 21st December, 1891, 20th December 1893, and 24th August, 1896. All fees are taken in stamps, which are purchased from the Inland Revenue. The insurance

  1329
  fees which are payable under Section 92 of the Act are placed to the credit of the trustees of the Insurance Fund.

  Ballysadare Foreshore.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a farmer named M'Gloin recently recovered damages for trespass against a fisherman named Cavanagh for mooring his boat in Ballysadare Bay, county Sligo, at a place marked as foreshore upon the Admiralty chart, and upon which it was proved the tide ebbed and flowed at all ordinary tides; and will he inquire as to the facts from the coastguard officer who gave evidence for the defence, and direct that the coastguard shall be watchful to prevent claims arising by user of foreshores by the farmers whose lands abut on the bay so as to secure to the fishermen their privileges of landing boats and nets on the shores vested in the Crown.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have asked the coastguard officer to report on all the matters mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and when I have received the Report I shall be glad to communicate with the hon. Member.

  Loss of the "Horace."
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the sinking, on the 17th May last, of the sloop "Horace," by collision with the steamship "Zero," In the River Humber, resulting in the death of Harold Grimbleby; why no Board of Trade inquiry has been held; and whether he has received a request from the parents of the dead man for an inquiry to be held.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A request for inquiry has been received from the representatives of the relatives of the man who lost his life by the collision between the sloop "Horace" and the steamer "Zero." Depositions were made by the masters of both vessels before the Receivers of Wreck and an inquest was held at Hull. As the collision was found not to be the fault of the "Zero" and the master of the sloop has no certificate, the Board of Trade would not be justified in incurring the expense
  1330
  of a formal inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts. I am advised that the master of the "Zero" attempted to manœuvre his vessel into position so as to lower his boat on the spot where the men were expected to be, and only desisted from putting his boat in the water when he saw the sloop's boat with the survivors in her. But the coroner stated after his inquiry that it would have made no difference if half a dozen boats had been launched.

  Leixlip Mails.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the outgoing mails from Leixlip, county Kildare, leave at 6 p.m. and 4 a.m.; and whether he could make such a rearrangement of mail departures as would enable the people of that district to send replies to morning letters by a mid-day mail.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a report on this subject and I will send the hon. Member an Answer in due course.

  The Stanley Revision.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Stanley scheme for improvements in the postal service included the payment of double time for Sunday duty to the staff; and, if so, when it is proposed to put this part of the scheme into effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No change has been made or proposed in the rate of payment for Sunday duty.

  Central Telegraph Office—Telegraphist's Complaint.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist, named Evershed, in the Central Office, London, applied for an exchange from night duty for one month, commencing July, on the ground of illness of his mother, and of the fact that he himself had barely recovered from a long period of sickness, and that he provided a competent substitute; whether seeing that although he furnished a medical certificate showing he was unfit for night duty, the Deputy Controller compelled him to perform the work and declined to accept the substitute, he will

  1331
  investigate the circumstances, and explain why the request for an exchange was refused.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The telegraphist in question had been allowed to exchange from night duty so freely that he had not performed any night duty for several years. It was not considered desirable that a particular officer should be thus indirectly exempted from night duty in permanence, and further substitution was therefore refused, after it had been ascertained by medical examination by the chief medical officer that there was no valid reason of health to prevent this officer performing night duty.

  Belfast Overseer's Promotion.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the memorial of January, 1905, regarding a promotion made the previous month to the class of overseer in the Belfast office; if he is aware that the postmaster of Belfast received several deputations of men who were passed over, and that when a second promotion was made to the overseers, class in February, 1905, the postmaster of Belfast assured these men that he knew of no reason, considering their record and work, why they should not be promoted, and assured them that had they not pressed their protest against the promotion made in the previous December they would not have had to complain of the promotions made in the following February; will he say whether he has received reports regarding these matters; and, if not, will he order an inquiry into the whole question.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I cannot review cases of promotion decided by my predecessor eighteen months ago.

  Belfast Telegraphists' Complaint.
  MR..SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to complaints made by the telegraph staff at the Belfast office regarding a smoke nuisance for which the proprietors of the Grand Central Hotel are responsible; and whether, seeing that assurances given by the hotel people that the nuisance
  1332
  would be abated have been totally disregarded, will he say what steps it is-proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The circumstances appear to be as stated. Further steps are being taken for the abatement of the nuisance complained of.

  East Finchley Telephone Exchange.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether any steps have yet been taken to establish a Post Office telephone exchange at East Finchley or Finchley (Church End); when it is likely that the exchange will be ready for work; and will he consider the advisability of admitting intending subscribers, pending the completion of an exchange at Finchley, to the systems of neighbouring exchanges at the ordinary rates current.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.} Plans were prepared some time ago for the extension of the telephone service to Finchley, and the establishment of an exchange at Church End will be proceeded with as soon as the necessary way leave consents have been received from the district council. I fear that it will not be possible, pending the establishment of the exchange, to give residents at Finchley circuits to another exchange at ordinary rates; but I propose to open public call offices in the district at an early date, and these will I hope tend to minimise the inconvenience until the exchange is ready.

  Hampstead Telephone Exchange Employees.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a large number of men, formerly engaged in connection with the constructional work of the Post Office telephones have recently been discharged owing to slackness of work; and whether a substantial reduction has been made in the employees of or connected with the Hampstead Exchange on this ground; and whether this is duo to any falling off of subscribers to this Exchange or generally throughout the telephone service of the northern suburbs.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In the last two months thirty-two workmen have had to be paid off in the Hampstead district in consequence of the completion

  1333
  of the main duct work on which they were employed. There is no falling off in the number of subscribers to the Hampstead or other telephone exchanges in the northern suburbs.

  Torquay Election-Corrupt Practices.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the practice of the Public Prosecutor in instituting proceedings to rely upon an ex parte statement made by the complainants or their solicitor, or to take any, and, if so, what steps to verify the charges made; whether any, and, if so, what steps were taken by the Public Prosecutor to inquire into the facts of the case alleged against Mr. Blackler, who was recently prosecuted at the Exeter Assizes on a charge of corrupt practices at the Torquay election, and against whom the grand jury found no bill; and whether any machinery exists, in a case such as that of Mr. Blackler, for providing for the costs of the accused out of the public funds.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The Attorney-General answers this Question at the request of the Home Secretary. The director of public prosecutions makes such inquiries as are practicable in all cases submitted to him. In the case of Mr. Blackler, the statements of the witnesses were taken by a firm of solicitors, known to the director, and in whom he had confidence, also an opinion of counsel was forwarded to him advising that in his opinion there were grounds for proceeding under Section 2 of 46 and 47 Vic, c. 51. This afforded evidence which in the judgment of the director justified a prosecution. Process was applied for and granted. The accused when before the bench offered no defence or explanation. The magistrates, eleven in number, committed him unanimously to take his trial at the assizes. I am aware of no machinery providing for the payment of the costs of accused persons who may be acquitted by the verdict of either grand or petty juries out of public funds.

  Imprisonment in Default of Paying Fines.
  MR. CAMERON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, during 1904, 107,625 persons were sent
  1334
  to prison in default of paying fines; and, if so, whether he is prepared to effect such alterations in the law as will give such persons the right of claiming a few weeks' grace before conviction, when they give bona fide and satisfactory addresses, or can produce reasonable security.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of persons received in prison in default of paying a fine during 1904 is correctly stated by the hon. Member. The law contemplates time being allowed defendants to pay the fines imposed on them, and only last year a circular was issued from the Home Office to all courts of summary jurisdiction urging that full effect should be given to the merciful provisions of the law. I have no reason to doubt that the considerations urged in the circular are generally borne in mind, and that a person with a settled home is rarely or never refused time for the payment of a fine; but if information is given me of any case in which they have been disregarded, I will have inquiry made. It should be remembered that while 107,625 persons were received in prison during 1904 in default of a fine, the total number fined was 550,490. Both figures, I may add, include many cases where the same person was fined several times during the year, and therefore appears several times in the registers of the courts or of the prison.

  South African War Stores Scandals.
  MR. HIGHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in connection with the inquiry of the Royal Commission on the scandals connected with the purchases and re-sales of stores in and after the late South African War, how many clerks are engaged upon the audit of the accounts; what fee per day is being paid for each clerk to the firm which permanently employs these clerks; when the audit began; and when it is expected to terminate.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The work to which the hon. Member refers, which was undertaken by direction of the Royal Commission on War Stores in South Africa, was not so much an audit of accounts as an inquiry by a firm of chartered accountants into the accounts of the War Office with reference to transactions during and after the war.

  1335
  The accountants began their work on July 29th, 1905, and concluded it, by submitting a report to the Royal Commission, on March 19th, 1906. The number of professional clerks employed by the firm was thirty from July to September, and forty from October onwards, with an addition of twenty clerks supplied by the Civil Service Commissioners for the more mechanical work. These numbers were gradually reduced as the inquiry drew to a close. The fees stipulated for by the firm were at the rate of three guineas a day for chief clerks and one and a half guineas a day for other professional clerks, but owing to the unexpected length of time occupied by the work, an abatement was made on the settlement of the account by which these rates were somewhat reduced.

  Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the efforts being made by the officials of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society to convert that society into a company under the Companies' Acts, and thereby change the character of the undertaking; whether he is aware that the persons insuring in that society, numbering about 3,000,000, consist mainly of people of small means who insure their children; and whether the Registrar of Friendly Societies can take steps to secure that these persons shall have an opportunity of being heard and of having their views considered (either through attendance and voting at meetings or otherwise) before any such conversion is authorised.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, on the 24th ultimo.

  Income-Tax Repayments.
  MR. SIMON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to paragraph 120 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Income-tax of last year, referring to the pressure under which claims for repayments are dealt with at Somerset House; whether he is aware that claims of this nature involve still more extreme pressure upon
  1336
  the local offices; whether he can state the number of first claims for repayment dealt with by local surveyors in the same period of pressure as is referred to in the above paragraph; and, if not, whether he will cause this information to be provided; whether he is aware that during this same period of pressure local surveyors have also to provide for the large expansion of work caused by the earlier delivery of schedules of unpaid amounts of Income Tax as provided in the new Regulations issued by the Board of Inland Revenue in 1904; whether frequent and heavy overtime without pay is performed by the clerical staff in these local offices during such periods; and whether it is proposed to take steps to relieve the pressure in these offices corresponding to the steps recently taken to relieve the pressure at the head office at Somerset House.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The number of first claims for repayment received at Somerset House, after being dealt with by the local surveyors in England and Wales, between 1st March and 30th June, 1906, was about 40,000 (a slight decrease as compared with the number of the preceding year), an average of 163 such claims for each of the 246 surveyors' district. Speaking generally, it is a fact that the work in surveyors' offices is heavier in the winter and spring than in the summer months, but there is no reason to suppose that the clerical staff, which has been largely increased in recent years, is insufficient to meet the demands upon it, nor are there any good grounds for supposing that frequent and heavy overtime without pay is performed by the clerks at the busy periods of the year. The surveyors are in the habit of applying for overtime allowances for their clerks in times of pressure, and all applications received are fully considered and dealt with on their merits.

  School for Training Pupil Teachers at Oxford.
  DR. MASSIE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that one of the schools proposed to be used in the scheme for training pupil teachers in Oxford is held in a private house and was opened only a few months ago, and that the head-mistress holds an elementary

  1337
  school teacher's certificate only; that the use of this school will introduce, for the first time in Oxford, sectarian controversy into the training of pupil teachers, the school being an institution of an extreme sectarian type, objected to by a large class of ratepayers; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I stated on 30th July in reply to a Question on this subject, the Board of Education have not recognised any particular schools for the purposes referred to, but are awaiting special Reports by their inspectors, and other information, before any decision is arrived at. I will see that the various matters referred to by the hon. Member are borne in mind, and that no scheme is sanctioned which will recognise inefficient provision or needlessly arouse controversy.

  Hampshire Rivers.
  MR. W. D. WARD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any other, and, if so, which rivers in Hampshire will be brought under the management of the Avon and Stour Conservancy; and, if no decision has at present been reached, whether there is prospect of a decision being reached at an early date.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No decision has yet been come to with regard to the application of the Avon and Stour Board of Conservators for an extension of their district, but we shall endeavour to arrive at a settlement of the matter with as little delay as possible.

  Hagley and Clent Street Improvement.
  MR. C. B. HARMSWORTH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the inconvenience occasioned by the refusal of his Department to sanction a loan of £435 applied for by the Bromsgrove Rural District Council in respect of private street improvement works carried out and completed in the parishes of Hagley and Clent, and to the fact that the plans and specifications for such works received the sanction of a court of summary juris-
  1338
  diction, sitting at the court house, Stourbridge, he will consider the possibility of revising the decision of which complaint is made.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) A local inquiry was held on this subject by one of the inspectors of the Local Government Board, and it appeared that the works could not be regarded as satisfactory. I have carefully considered the matter, but I regret that I do not see my way to sanctioning the loan desired.

  Indian Food Crop Yields.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how the yield of food crops per acre in each province in India for the year 1904 compares with the figures for the years 1880 and 1901.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Figures for 1880 are not available, as provincial estimates of the yield per acre of the principal crops were not framed until 1892. The latest volume of the Agricultural Statistics of India gives a comparative table of the estimates for the five years ending respectively with 1897 and 1902. I will cause a copy of the volume to be sent to my honourable friend if he desires it.

  Coolnakisha Evicted Tenant.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if William Agar, formerly of Coolnakisha, Old Leighlin, Carlow, has any prospect of being restored to his former holding on Sir Thomas Butler's property.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will have William Agar's application for reinstatement inquired into as soon as possible. The Commissioners understand, however, that Agar's former holding is in the occupation of another tenant. Proceedings for the sale of Sir T. Butler's estate have not yet come before the Commissioners.

  Ferna Bridge.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Myles O'Reilly Coat of Arms on the bridge of Ferna, county Cavan, is now

  1339
  placed upon a level with the roadway, and if left in this position will shortly be demolished; and will he, with a view to preserving this historic emblem, have it placed higher up upon the bridge, and thus remove it from danger of destruction and secure that it can be seen by passers by.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have no information upon this subject. The matter is one for the local authorities, to whose notice the Board, without delay, will bring the hon. Member's suggestion, which well deserves to be considered.

  Irish Poor Law Commission.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the great importance of the subject to the whole of Ireland, he can see his way to reconsider his decision regarding the constitution of the Irish Poor Law Commission and appoint to it an independent member of the medical profession who is thoroughly conversant with the whole principles, honour, and interests of the Poor Law medical profession in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No vacancy exists in the Irish Poor Law Commission, which has now practically completed its labours. The vacancy which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is in the Royal Commission on the Poor Law for the United Kingdom, and, as to that, I would refer him to the reply given by the Prime Minister yesterday to the Question of the hon. Member for West Waterford.

  Drumgriffen Turbary Eights.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether William Browne, Gardenham, Drumgriffen, county Galway, is entitled to rights of turbary under the agreement purchasing his holding from Major William W. P. Joyce, dated March 1st, 1905; whether he is aware that the purchase of this holding was conditional on such rights being secured to him; and whether the Estates Commissioners can take steps to see that they are so secured.
  1340
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that there are before them two agreements for purchase, signed by William Browne, dated March 1st, 1905. One of these relates to the purchase of one-fifteenth share of a turf bank, comprising altogether seventy-three acres. When the case comes before the Commisssioners for ruling, they will take all necessary steps to secure that Browne's share of this turf bank is properly vested in him.

  Lavally Parish Committee.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will reconsider their decision not to give a grant to the electoral division of Lavally, county Galway, for the purpose of a parish committee scheme; and whether he will consider the advisability, in case the Board decide to give a grant, of the nearest established committee administering the grant, thus avoiding the necessity of establishing a new committee for the electoral division which the Board consider inadvisable.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This matter will be brought before the Congested Districts Board for further consideration at their next meeting on the 8th instant.

  Irish Army Ordnance Labourers Pay.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been arrived at as to the increase of pay of labourers in the Army Ordnance Department in Ireland; and, if so, from what date will the increase take effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question is a large one. It is not at all clear that the wages of these labourers are below the market rate paid for the corresponding class of labour by private employers in Dublin, but the point is now under close investigation.

  Army Hay Contracts.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the hay and straw purchased for the Army are entirely homegrown; or, if not, what proportion is imported.

  1341
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The contracts do not contain any specification as to sources of supply, and accordingly it is not possible to give any definite reply to the Question. Most probably by far the greater part is home-grown.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  War Ship Tonnage.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the aggregate tonnage of British war vessels of every class and type is equal to the aggregate tonnage of the war vessels of France, Germany, Russia, and Italy.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,: I am informed that the aggregate tonnage of British war vessels of every class is 2,041,113 tons. The aggregate tonnage for France, Germany, Russia, and Italy is 2,708,461 tons. The Answer to the Question is, therefore, in the negative.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Answer would have been equally true at any time of the last fifteen years, and that these tonnage comparisons are most misleading?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  *MR BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in obsolete protected cruisers we have over double the tonnage of the nations named in the question?
  MR. ROBERTSONwas understood to say that he had only to answer the Question put to him.

  Tinned Meats for the Navy.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can inform the House of the quantity of American tinned meat at present in stock at the Deptford, Plymouth, and Gosport Victualling Yards; whether this meat was to the order of the late Government; whether it is at present served out to the Navy; what is the intention of the Government
  1342
  with regard to its disposal; whether he will state the amount of jam purchased by the late Government which has recently been condemned at the Deptford Victualling Yard; what was the original cost; who are the contractors; and whether they can be held responsible.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The quantity of American tinned meat at present in stock at the victualling yards mentioned is approximately 1,680,0001b. The bulk of this meat was purchased in 1903–04, when supplies of Australian meat were unobtainable owing to drought. Men serving in His Majesty's ships have for the present been allowed the option of drawing Australian or Argentine corned beef in place of American, but it has not been thought necessary to consider special measures for the disposal of the stock of American meat. As regards the last part of the Question, a quantity of jam, amounting to 269,0001b., has been reported as unsuitable for issue, and the matter is now under investigation. The prices paid for this jam range from 28s. 7d. to 34s. 5d. per cwt. In these circumstances I do not feel in a position to give the names of the firms concerned.
  MR. LUPTON: How long has this jam been in stock?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should think about two years.

  H.M.S. "Montagu."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether two of the ships' companies employed in the attempt to salve the "Montagu" have not been able to go ashore or obtain leave for over two months.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Leave will be given to these ships' companies as soon as the work on the "Montagu" permits.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will now bring to an end the expenditure on the attempt to salve the "Montagu;" whether he is aware that the battleship "Duncan," In the abandoned attempt on July 23rd, struck the ground twice and was imperilled by the tide race; whether one cruiser and one

  1343
  destroyer employed at various times in the salvage operations have grounded; I whether a lighter was sunk; and whether he has any further information of casualties to the Navy in connection with these operations.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question of further attempts to salve the "Montagu" will be decided after the next Spring tides. The "Duncan" Touched ground once only, the damage being very slight; she was at no time imperilled by the tide race. The only other casualties of any importance which have occurred in the operations are the loss of a lighter, which has since been recovered, and the loss of two ships' poats.

  Torpedo Boats.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the eighty-seven torpedo boats figuring in the recently issued Return are upwards of fifteen years old; how many are capable of attaining in practice the speed of a modern battleship, and how many are armed with the obsolete 14-inch torpedo; and what is the number of torpedo boats and destroyers building and projected for the chief naval Powers.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Of the eighty-five torpedo boats now on the list fifty-five are upwards of fifteen years old. These might be expected to attain a speed of from seventeen to eighteen knots. Of the remaining thirty, seventeen could probably reach twenty knots and thirteen over twenty-three knots. Sixty-four of these boats are armed with 14-inch torpedoes, but the torpedoes are of types which are not considered obsolete. The number of destroyers building for Great Britain is eighteen, and fourteen are included in the programme of new construction for this year. As regards the other great naval Powers, the position is as follows. France: Under construction, fourteen destroyers, thirty torpedo boats. Projected, eleven destroyers, eleven torpedo boats. Germany: Under construction, fourteen destroyers. Projected, four destroyers. Russia: Under construction, sixteen destroyers. Italy: Under construction, four destroyers, fourteen torpedo boats. Projected, ten
  1344
  destroyers, fifteen torpedo boats. United States: Under construction, no destroyers or torpedo boats. Projected, three destroyers. Japan: Under construction, twelve destroyers.

  Naval Canteen Inquiry.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the promised inquiry into the abuses of the naval canteen system has been instituted; whether it is now proceeding; whether it proposes to hear any evidence before coming to a conclusion; and whether, before its conclusions are acted upon, this House will be afforded some opportunity of considering them.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A Committee has been appointed to inquire into the system of naval canteens, and it will take such evidence as may be necessary. It is probable that any proposals which may be formulated by the Committee will be tested experimentally in some fleet or squadron, and the hon. Member will have the usual opportunity of bringing up the question in the House on Navy Vote 2.

  Sheerness Reserve Division—Firing Practice.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has now completed his inquiry into the manner in which quarterly firing practice was carried out by the Sheerness Reserve Division in April last; whether, in order to comply with the admiral's orders,. H.M.S. "Vindictive" fired the whole of her 6-inch heavy gun ammunition in ten minutes, while only two ships were permitted to use a proper range for this purpose; whether the responsibility for this-waste of training and ammunition lies, by King's Regulation, upon the roar-admiral commanding the division; and, if so, what steps the Admiralty have taken to enforce this responsibility and to ensure that such waste shall not recur.
  MR. EDMUMD ROBERTSON: As the result of the inquiry now completed, it would appear that the hon. Member has been misinformed, and that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that there was any waste of ammunition, or that the firing practice was in any way hurried.

  Battleship Construction—Wages at Portsmouth.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the regulations in force as to extra pay to workmen employed in the construction of battleships at Portsmouth working in confined spaces; and whether wing compartments are treated the same as double bottoms, so far as extra rates are concerned.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Workpeople engaged in cleaning and painting double bottoms or working in confined spaces, are paid 1½d. an hour in addition to their ordinary rate of pay while so employed. Wing compartments are treated in the same way as double bottoms where the conditions as regards space, nature of access, and ventilation are the same.

  Shoebury Shell Dangers.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether further inquiries have now been made by the War Office into the statement brought to his notice last month, that on the 4th June a shell from Shoebury fell within twenty yards of a party of nine who were fishing in the bawley "Edgar," from Leigh-on-Sea; whether he is aware that prior to the matter being brought to the notice of the War Office, Sergeant-Major Gunnett had already been to Leigh-on-Sea to interview the skipper of the bawley "Edgar," with reference to the incident, and had ascertained all the details; and that those responsible for the firing still allege that the incident did not take place; and, if so, can he state why Sergeant-Major Gunnett visited Leigh to interview the skipper before any complaint or allegation had been made to the War Office.
  *THE SECRETARY OV STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,: A Court of Inquiry will be held to investigate fully the alleged incident. As regards the visit of Sergeant-Major Gum-net to Leigh which took place on the 20th June, I may point out that my hon. friend gave notice of his Question on the 18th June and that the attention of the Commandant of the School of Gunnery was drawn to it on the 19th June.

  Newtowngore Ex-Soldier's Pension.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider the case of Thomas Henry Bryson, formerly of the Royal Engineers and now of Newtowngore, County Leitrim, who enlisted on 29th December, 1877, and is in possession of the Zulu medal, with the only clasp given for the war, and is disabled with rheumatism, which he contracted whilst on foreign service; and whether, seeing that his pension is only 1s. per day, while other pensioners who served in the the same war have 2s. per day, he will reconsider his case with a view to increasing his pension.
  *MR. HALDANE: This man was invalided from the Royal Engineers after a service of five years, 332 days only, on account of rheumatism, which commenced at Chatham after he had served for just over a year and before he served abroad. His present pension of 1s. a day is the highest which can be granted to him under the regulations.

  Curragh Camp Stabling.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether on the 3rd July last, sixteen polo ponies, the property of officers of the 19th Hussars, stationed at the Curragh Camp, were brought to and provided with stabling at the Marlborough Barracks, Dublin, till the end of the week; if so, whether the taxpayers are bound to provide free stabling for horses kept by officers for their own amusement; and if the taxpayers are not so bound, what stops does he propose to take to prevent a recurrence of the incident in question.
  *MR. HALDANE: When Government stabling is temporarily vacant and not actually required for accommodation of Government horses, the private horses or ponies of officers may be accommodated provided that no expense to the public is thereby incurred.
  MR. CLANCY: And is there no expense to the public?
  *MR. HALDANE: None.

  British Indians.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State

  1347
  for the Colonies whether the Government will make further representations to the administrations concerned, to the effect that the exaction of a literary test in English from British Indians is unfair.
  THE UNDER-SECRETAKY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,: As at present advised the Secretary of State is not prepared to make representations on the subject to the Colonial Governments.

  South African Murders—Rev. George Maddison.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Rev. George Maddison, a Wesleyan minister, of Johannesburg, who was assaulted by natives in the early part of this month, has died of his wounds; and what action is proposed for the protection of Europeans in South Africa.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A statement to this effect has appeared in the newspapers, but I have received no official information. It is the duty of the local Government to afford all reasonable protection.
  *MR. REESasked if this was not the third death by violence offered to a party of Europeans of which Mr. Maddison was a member, and Mr. Churchill requested him to give notice.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the number of white, yellow and coloured persons respectively who have been murdered by Chinese coolies in the Transvaal during the first six months of the year.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I unintentionally misled the House the other day when in answer to a supplementary Question I said the majority of the murdered persons were whites. The number of persons murdered by Chinese coolies in Witwatersrand and Pretoria districts during the first six months of this year is:—

  Whites

  2

  Coloured

  4

  Yellow

  21

  Total

  27

  Disfranchised Cape Colony Voters.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many voters were disfranchised in Cape Colony after the war, and when these electors will regain their votes.
  MR. CHURCHILL: According to a Cape official Return, printed in 1904, the number of persons disqualified from voting at Parliamentary elections owing to convictions for treason in ten districts principally affected by rebellion was 7,072. The sentence in the case of ordinary rebels was for five years. The next biennial registration takes place in 1907, and it is understood that the number of those who will not be able to be placed on the register then is inconsiderable.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, of the Chinese coolies who applied for repatriation, a certain number are anxious to withdraw their application, but have been refused permission to do so.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Instructions have been given that the cases of coolies who change their minds must be most carefully investigated by the superintendent, and a record kept. If he is completely satisfied that they wish to remain in the Transvaal they are not to be repatriated against their will. I am informed that their have been four such cases. There is no reason to apprehend that any have been refused permission to withdraw their applications.

  Repatriation Notices.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the terms of the amended repatriation notices are readily intelligible to the coolies employed in the South African mines; and how many of them have intimated a desire to avail themselves of the facilities thereby promised.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that the amended notice has not been understood. He has received no report as to the number of applications made under it.

  Transvaal Civil Service.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what are the respective numbers of British and Boer civil servants at present serving in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know what the numbers may be, nor whether such classification is possible.

  Transvaal Bywoners.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the estimated number of bywoners in the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot undertake to make an estimate.

  Transvaal Second Chamber.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the High Commissioner will be consulted as to the persons to be nominated for the Second Chamber of the Transvaal Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is our practice to consult freely with the High Commissioner on all matters of public importance which concern the territories under his charge.

  Manhood Suffrage in South Africa.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether manhood suffrage exists in Cape Colony or in Natal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

  British Cotton Growing Association and the India Office.
  *MR. REES: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will present the correspondence between the India Office and Government of India, and the British Cotton Growing Association which has taken place since the presentation of C. 1982 of 1904.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,: The Government of India a few months ago published in India the correspondence which had taken place
  1350
  subsequent to the date referred to. I shall be happy to present it to Parliament if my hon, friend will move for it.

  Indian Country Spirit.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will communicate to the House the results of the deputation of Major Bedford, I.M.S., to investigate the avoidably noxious properties of common Indian country spirit.
  MR. MORLEY: When the Report reaches me, I will consider whether the Papers can be presented.

  Assault of Sergeant Maxwell at Allahabad.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has any information regarding the assault committed last month by natives of India upon Sergeant Maxwell at Allahabad.
  MR. MORLEY: No information on this subject has reached me.

  Bengal Tea Land Assessment.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Eastern Bengal proposes to increase the assessment of land under tea in the Surma Valley by 50 per centum; and whether, in view of the fact that the tea industry has suffered for years past from currency legislation, war taxation, high duties, and increased cost of labour, that prices are low, and the condition of estates in the Surma Valley unsatisfactory, he will cause inquiries to be made by the Government of India as to the justice of such increased assessment.
  MR. MORLEY: I would refer my honourable friend to the Answer I gave to a similar Question in this House on the 31st July.† I have no reason to suppose that due regard has not been paid to the circumstan(ces of the tea industry, and I hardly think it necessary to interfere with the discretion vested by the Law in the local Government.

  The Opium Traffic
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps he has taken, or intends
  † See (4) Debates, clxii., 698.

  1351
  taking, to give effect to the unanimous Vote of the House of Commons against the opium traffic between India and China.
  MR. MORLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question in this House on July 17th, as to the action which His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter, viz., first to ascertain exactly what the proposals and inclinations of the Chinese Government are, and secondly, to see whether they can in some way meet those views.

  British Trade in Manchuria.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard and to develop British commercial interests in Manchuria, in view of the importance to this country of neutral markets on account of our Free Trade principles.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: His Majesty's Government understand that there are no longer any restrictions on the movements of foreign traders or merchandise in Manchuria. A Consul-General will be appointed to reside at Mukden, and there is also a Consul at Newchang. It will be their duty to see that British traders receive the equal treatment with the nationals of other countries to which they are entitled, and to afford them such assistance as they properly can. A few weeks ago Mr. Hosie, the Commercial Attache at the Pekin Legation, was sent specially to Newchang and Mukden to report on the position in Manchuria.

  Disturbances in Persia.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information on the subject of the disturbances in Persia, especially as to whether any persons, and, if any, how many, have taken refuge at the British Legation; and whether he can state what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to bring about a better state of things in that country, in view of Great Britain's political and commercial interests there.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government are being kept fully informed of the state of Affairs in Persia, and the latest telegraphic information received is to the effect that some 12,000 persons have taken refuge at the British Legation at Teheran. His Majesty's Government have urged upon the Persian Government the advisability of taking immediate measures to put a stop to this state of affairs by giving satisfaction to the reasonable demands of the refugees. We have been informed that the resignation of the Grand Vizier has been accepted by the Shah.

  The Servian Regicides.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precautions have been taken, and what guarantees have been obtained, to enable the British Minister at Belgrade to avoid coming into contact with regicides; how the British Minister will be able to carry out his duties efficiently if he avoids all relations with regicides; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence relating to the renewal of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Servia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have received from the Servian Government assurances, which they consider satisfactory, that His Majesty's Minister at Belgrade shall not be brought into contact with regicides. It does not seem necessary to lay any Papers.

  Morocco Police.
  *MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Ministers at Tangier have power to use the police, which are being formed under European instructors in the coast towns of Morocco, to stop the public sale of slaves in those towns.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The European police to be formed in Morocco being under the Sovereign authority of the Sultan will not receive directions from the Corps Diplomatique at Tangier. His Majesty's Minister at Tangier is fully aware of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the issue by the

  1353
  Sultan of stringent orders to the police in the coast towns for the suppression of the slave traffic.
  *MR. ASHLEYput two supplementary Questions which were understood to have reference to the appointment of inspectors and was referred to the General Act of the Algeciras Conference.

  European Land Owners in Morocco.
  *MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recommendations of the Algeciras Conference, approved of by the Sultan of Morocco, have in any way altered the conditions under which Europeans can obtain titles to land in that country.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to Article 60 of the General Act of the Algeciras Conference, which has been laid before Parliament. It lays down that in conformity with the right recognised as belonging to them by Article 11 of the Madrid Convention, foreigners shall not, except for proper reasons, be hindered from acquiring land throughout the whole of Morocco, while "In the ports open to trade, and within a radius of ten kilometres round such ports,"the consent of the Sultan's Government is granted "In a general manner, without such consent having henceforth to be obtained specially in respect of each purchase."
  In reply to a supplementary Question, Sir Edward Grey said the Act would not have a retrospective effect, and consequently would not apply to land sold at Tangiers before it was passed.

  Disquietude at Bengazi.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent disquiet at Bengazi, and the reported refusals to allow European travellers to pass through that district, he will consider the advisability of the Commission engaged on the delimitation of the frontier at Tabah being employed to delimit the Tripolitan frontier.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A proper delimitation is desirable, but His Majesty's Government do not consider the present
  1354
  moment favourable for extending the scope of the Commission now engaged on the Sinai frontier.

  Mecca Pilgrims.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the conveyance by sea of Egyptian pilgrims from Egypt to Arabia is made a monopoly of the Khedival Steamship Company, while natives of other countries are allowed to sail from the same ports by other lines; and whether Sir Auckland Colvin, formerly financial adviser to the Egyptian Government, is the chairman of the company in question.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Foreign Office are not in possession of any information on the matter, which is one that primarily concerns the Egyptian Government.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry? This matter has been going on for years.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If any evidence is brought to my knowledge of the matters injuriously affecting British ships I will inquire.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: And other ships also. Is it permissible to give a monopoly for the benefit of English shipping to the exclusion of all other shipping?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I presume the interest of the shipping of the other countries will be safeguarded by their own Governments, should anything be done by the Egyptian Government which they deemed to be prejudicial to those interests.

  Seamen's Remittances—Deductions.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way to remit that part of the charge of threepence in the pound, levied on the remittance home of British seamen's wages from Hamburg and other foreign ports, which is now retained by the British Consuls in those ports.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I understand that arrangements have been come to

  1355
  with the Treasury which will enable us to give up the part of the charge referred to, which amounts to twopence in the pound.

  Transvaal Constitution.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Letters Patent will be issued; and when the new Transvaal Constitution will come into effect.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No precise date can yet be fixed for the issue of the Letters Patent, nor a date when the new Constitution will come into effect. Everything will be done to expedite the matter, and an Order in Council has been passed for preparing the list of voters by adding the fresh voters who will become entitled under manhood franchise. I should expect that the elections will be held not later than the beginning of next year.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the Letters Patent would contain any restriction on the importation of munitions of war into the Transvaal?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think there will be any departure from the ordinary practice in the case of instruments of this character.
  MR. LYTTELTON: When will further Papers on this subject be laid?
  MR. CHURCHILLreplied that they would be out shortly. They were being gone through.

  Death Duties.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of death duties has been paid into the Exchequer each year during the past six years.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,: I would refer my hon. friend to the table on page 79 of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1904–5 (Cd. 2033), which gives the" Exchequer receipt of each of the eleven years from 1894–5 to 1904–5. In 1905–6 the amount paid into the Exchequer was £12,970,000.

  Discipline in the Church—Cost of the Report.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the cost of the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Discipline of the Church of England, including the volumes containing the evidence.
  MR. ASQUITH: The total cost of printing and paper is about £2,050.

  Collectors of the King's Taxes.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether collectors of King's taxes are required by the terms of their appointment to give all their time to the duties of their office; whether they are permitted to combine with those duties the ownership and conduct of house, beer, coal, and other agencies; and, if so, whether it is hold to be in the public interest that information obtained in the course of public duty should be used by these officers to further their private concerns.
  MR. ASQUITH: Collectors of taxes are not required to give their whole time to the duties of their office. They may engage in other avocations, including those mentioned. The use of information obtained as a collector of taxes for the furtherance of private interests would be regarded as a serious breach of official trust, and would be appropriately dealt with if brought to the attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, or of the General Commissioners of the District, as the case may be.

  German Gipsies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that eight families of German gipsies, numbering seventy-five persons, led by a Bavarian named Peter Goi, arrived last March at Leith from Hamburg, and have since been a source of inconvenience and expense to the local authorities and people of Glasgow, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hull, York, Leeds, Wakefield, Barnsley, Sheffield, and Manchester, as well as to the intervening districts; if he can state who was responsible for the admission of these aliens; if he will reimburse the areas concerned the costs to which they

  1357
  have been put by the laches of the Immigration Department of the Home Office; and how soon he will rid the country of these foreign caravans under the powers conferred upon him by the last Parliament.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: The bands of German gipsies referred to by my hon. and gallant friend presumably form part of those who landed in Scotland, as he says, in March, April and May. When it became apparent that the traffic in these aliens was being organised so that they could escape inspection I took steps, as announced to this House on May 10th, to secure that any further arrivals by the steamship line which was carrying them should be subjected to inspection. Those steps were successful in preventing any further arrivals. The admission of these aliens was not due to any failure on the part of the officials engaged in administering the Aliens Act, and that Act gives me no jurisdiction to deal with them.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How are we to get rid of these wretched people?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid no action can be taken unless people interested provide money for their passage to the Continent.

  London Ambulance Service.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what action the Home Office has taken, and proposes to take, in reference to the application of the London County Council for statutory powers to establish, or aid in establishing, an efficient and rapid ambulance service in London for dealing with cases of accident and sudden illness in the streets and public places.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have been making inquiry as to ambulance service in London and elsewhere, and I think it would be well if a conference were held at the Home Office between the parties mainly interested for the purpose of informal discussion, and I hope the hon. Member may be able to take part in the
  1358
  conference. Possibly it may be desirable to appoint a small Committee to take evidence and report.

  Rejections of Aliens.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of Zalman Wein, a political refugee from Russia, who was refused permission to land by the officials administering the Aliens Act, also to the cases of Moses Enighorn, Itzig Levin, Sarah Kamisar, Cham Sharogrofsky, Yankel Truse, Jacob Pollack, Sinuha Tusman, and other similar cases all occurring this month; and whether in view of the denial of the right of asylum in these cases, will he say what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. GLADSTONE: All these cases were dealt with in my Answer on the 30th July to the hon. Member for the Loughborough Divisidh of Leicestershire, and I have nothing to add to that Answer. Both that Question and this were based upon newspaper statements which have been found to be inaccurate in many essential particulars.

  Imprisoned Suffragist.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to recommend the release of Mrs. Jane Sparborough, one of the suffragists sentenced to six weeks imprisonment on 6th July, in view of the fact that she is not a leader of the movement, and that her only offence appears to have been her reference to the word "Featherstone" under Mr. Asquith's window at a time when all the crowd had dispersed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to make any recommendation in this case. The prisoner can obtain her own release at any time by obeying the order of the Court, and in any case her sentence will expire on the 14th inst.

  Hindustani Interpreters for London Prisons.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in any of the London prisons,
  † See (4) Debates, clxii., 431.

  1359
  there are interpreters who can speak Hindustani; failing this, whether there are Government interpreters at the docks who might be sent to the prisons in case of need; and, if so, how many.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no Hindustani interpreter in the London prisons. The few Hindustani prisoners who are received can almost always speak enough English to make themselves understood: but if necessity should arise, the Prison Commissioners would procure the services of an interpreter.

  Merchant Shipping Laws in the Channel Islands.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply has been received from the Channel Islands authorities in reference to the question of extending the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Laws of the United Kingdon to those islands.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have so far been engaged in correspondence with the insular authorities on the subject of their law and practice relating to navigation and the certification of pilots. But I do not think they will object to pass legislation providing that every master of a ship must be properly certificated, and I am about to propose to them officially that this should be done.

  River Tay Pilots.
  MR. "WILKIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that by the regulations of the Trinity House, Leith, no one can be licensed to act as a pilot for the River Tay unless he has had at least three years service at sea in a square-rigged sailing vessel; and will he explain why two persons have been appointed who have not this length of sea-service while others have been refused.
  THE PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I am aware of the requirement referred to in the first part of the Question. The Trinity House, Leith, informs mo that they are unaware of any licences having been granted to persons who have not had the requisite sea-service, and if the hon. Member will give
  1360
  me the names of the two pilots to whom he refers I will make further inquiry in the matter and will let him know the result.
  MR. JOYCE: Seeing that steam has so prominent a part, will the right hon. Genteman see that their sea-service is equally divided between steamers and sailing vessels?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will look into the matter.

  Railway Carriage Doors.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, bearing in mind the number of accidents that arise on our railways from insufficiently fastened carriage doors, he will take steps to compel the various railway companies to attach an outside bar or fastener on every railway carriage, as is done on continental trains, an exception being made in the case of local traffic.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade are advised by their technical officers that the provision of such an appliance as that referred to by the hon. Member would not be desirable, inasmuch as it would tend to prevent the free egress of passengers from the carriages of the train in cases of emergency. The Board have, however, from time to time been in communication with the railway companies in regard to the use of inside handles to the carriage doors, and they have recommended the abolition of such handles on all trains other than suburban trains. The matter is not one, however, in which the Board have any powers of compulsion. It is believed that the greater proportion of the accidents caused to passengers by falling from trains are probably duo not to the insufficient fastening of carriage doors, but to the doors being improperly opened by persons in the carriages.

  Electric Light Undertakings Audit.
  MR. T. DA VIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the ultimate purchase by the local authorities within the period fixed by Parliament, in pursuance of the powers given him under the Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation Acts, granted by Parliament to companies

  1361
  in the administrative county of London, he will appoint, as auditor of the accounts of such undertakings, the auditor of the Local Government Board, who already audits the electric lighting accounts of the boroughs holding Orders within such area, or whether he will take steps to assimilate the two systems of audit in order to secure a uniform and reliable basis of comparison.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to refer my honourable friend to the Answer given on July 31st † to a similar Question which was asked by my hon. friend the Member for Camberwell. If my hon. friend has any suggestions which he desires to make on the subject of audit I shall of course be very happy to consider them.

  Seamen's Remittances—Deductions.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to remit that part of the charge of threepence in the pound levied on the remittance home of British seamen's wages from Hamburg and other foreign ports which is now retained by the Board of Trade.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This matter is still under consideration, but I hope to be able to inform my hon. and gallant friend of the decision before the House rises.

  West Ham Burgess Roll.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a public notice issued by the West Ham overseers stating that certain persons who occupy certain parts of houses and pay their rent to other persons residing in the same house were lodgers, and not entitled to be registered as householders, and have been omitted from the burgess roll as occupiers for the ensuing year; and whether the Local Government Board has any power over the overseers to compel them to place the names of all persons occupying parts of houses on the burgess roll, even if they pay rent to persons residing in the same house, in accordance with the Devonport appeal case.
  † See (4) Debates, clxii., 681.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,: I have seen the notice referred to, which states that in consequence of a decision given by the West Ham revising barrister last year, the overseers have omitted from the list of voters persons occupying part of houses and paying rent to other persons resident on the premises. The notice, however, informs all such occupiers desiring to be registered either as householders or as lodgers that they may claim to be so registered, and that all such claims sent in to the assistant overseer for registration before the 20th instant will be laid before the revising barrister. I understand that the overseers consider that the circumstances at West Ham are different from those in the Devonport case, and that at West Ham the sub-tenant is in most cases under the control of the landlord, and is in fact a lodger. The correctness of the view taken by the overseers will no doubt come before the revising barrister in connection with claims made by persons affected. The Local Government Board have no control over the overseers in the matter.

  Manitoban Harvest and the Unemployed.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the great harvest in prospect in Manitoba and to the appeal for 20,000 men to help to gather it; and whether he will in connection with the committees under the Unemployed Act supply the men to do at any rate a part of this work instead of farming at Hollesley Bay or other farm colonies.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have considered the suggestion of the hon. Member, but it does not appear that I could render any effective assistance with regard to it.

  Tuberculous Outbreak at Ipswich.
  MR. PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Ipswich Board of Guardians Farm Committee, dealing with the question of tuber culosis in the cattle of the workhouse farm; and whether, in view of the fact that after a report from the medical

  1363
  officer of health and two veterinary surgeons two animals were slaughtered and eight others have since then been condemned as unfit for food, and also all milk from the farm prohibited from being consumed in the workhouse, he will order a similar investigation to be made in the case of all workhouse farms and other farms which will supply milk to the workhouses throughout the country.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am in communication with the Ipswich Board of Guardians on the subject of the Report referred to.

  West Ham Unemployed.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will at once consider the advisability of making a substantial grant from the Government's grant of £200,000 to the West Ham Distress Committee, in consequence of the poverty in the borough caused by the want of employment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am giving consideration to the subject of the distribution of the grant, but I am not at present in a position to make a payment to any particular distress committee.

  Parliamentary Grant for the Unemployed
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the desire expressed by the chairman of the London Central Unemployed Committee that before the adjournment of the House in August they may be able to lay the foundation of their next winter's work; and, in these circumstances, will he inform the central committee as soon as possible what sum he proposes to place at their disposal out of the Parliamentary grant.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The subject of the distribution of the grant is receiving my attention; but 1 cannot at present.say when 1 shall be in a position to state what amount will be placed at the disposal of the central (unemployed) body.

  Poplar Union Audits.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a statement given in evidence
  1364
  at the Poplar inquiry that the accounts of the Poor Law Guardians of Poplar had been regularly audited by Government auditors, and that on no occasion had they drawn attention to any contract or price as improper or improvident; and whether he will consider the advisability of securing a more efficient audit by auditors instructed to call attention to such matters as part of their duty.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I understand that a statement to the effect referred to was made at the inquiry. I propose to consider whether any further instructions should be given to the auditors, together with other matters arising out of the inquiry, when the Report of the Inspector has been received.

  Penny Postage to the United States.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has had a substantial offer with a bank guarantee to cover the loss for three years, if any, of establishing penny postage between Great Britain and the United States of America; if so, will he say whether he has accepted that offer; and, if not, will he explain why.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: The correspondence in regard to this matter has already appeared in the Press.
  MR. MORTON: But why did you re fuse to accept this guarantee?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps I had better read the letters sent with regard to it. (The right hon. Gentleman then read the letters referred to.)
  MR. MORTON: But you take similar guarantees with regard to telegraph work.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, but that guarantee is given by individuals or localities which require special facilities that would involve a loss to the Exchequer. This is an entirely different question—one affecting two nations.
  MR. LUPTON: Still, it would be a great convenience to the public.

  Stornoway Mails.
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that during the last nine years the letters delivered and posted at Stornoway have almost doubled, whilst during the same period the parcels delivered and posted have far more than doubled, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a faster boat to be placed on the Stornoway mail service, the subsidy for which has remained unchanged for a great many years.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Although the amount of correspondence for and from Stornoway has increased, it is still very small compared with the cost of the mail service; and I should not be justified simply for postal purposes in incurring the heavy additional expense involved in order to secure the employment of a faster steamer on the service.

  Cape Colony: Duty on Catalogues.
  MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has any information to the effect that a Customs duty of 7d. is being charged on each catalogue and price list entering Cape Colony; and, if so, why such information has not been given to the public, thereby saving inconvenience to the numerous firms doing business with Cape Colony.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Information has recently been received that a duty of the kind has been decided on; but in reply to inquiries for full particulars it is stated by the Post Office of the Cape Colony that in view of difficulties which have arisen the whole question of the taxation of printed papers sent to the Colony by post is being reconsidered by a Colonial Customs Conference. The result of this Conference is to be communicated to me by telegraph at the earliest opportunity, and in the meantime I am without the information necessary for the issue of a notice on the subject to the public.

  Newcastle-on-Tyne Postmen's Grievances.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called, by petition or otherwise, to the alleged grievances of the postmen of Newcastle-on-Tyne
  1366
  respecting the introduction of drill qualification as a necessity for appointment to the position of assistant inspectorship of telegraph messengers; and whether he can say if ordinary postmen of service will be allowed to occupy those positions.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A memorial on this subject has been received from the postmen at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The question raised is one which affects the whole country, and not Newcastle alone, and is under consideration.

  Post Office Uniform Contracts.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, with the view of encouraging local industries, he will consider the question of placing at Inverness contracts for the furnishing of the uniforms required for post office officials in the Highlands, as has for many years been done by the Admiralty in the case of uniforms required by it for local use.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Tenders for uniform clothing are invited every three years, by advertisements appearing in Scottish as well as English newspapers. The present contract was made this year, and no tender was received from Inverness. The next opportunity of tendering will be in 1909. It would not be expedient to make separate contracts for different localities.

  Telegraph Poles—Creosoting Contract.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether all the posts imported from the Baltic into Scotland for use as telegraph poles are landed and creosoted at Methil, in Fifeshire; whether he is aware that Inverness would, so far as cheap transit by rail and canal to the north and west of Scotland is concerned, be a better port of landing than Methil; whether he is aware that a creosoting plant exists at Inverness; and whether, therefore, he will consider the advisability of landing and creosoting at Inverness such portion at least of the Baltic posts as are required for uso in the north and west of Scotland.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Telegraph poles are not this year being creosoted in Scotland. Poles for use in Scotland have

  1367
  in previous years been creosoted at Methil, but the tender received for this year for the work was not satisfactory. It is known that, at Inverness, as indeed elsewhere in Scotland, there is creosoting plant, and it will be considered whether when the time comes for inviting tenders for next year, the work could profitably be done there.

  Windward and Leeward Islands Mails.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether, having regard to the loss and inconvenience caused to merchants and planters and others connected with the Colonies of British Guiana and the Windward and Leeward Islands from the absence of regular mail facilities since the abandonment of the West Indian mail contract on 30th June, 1905, and having regard to the fact that the Royal Commission which visited the West Indies in 1897, of which the right honourable the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was a member, emphasised in their Report the importance of the establishment of cheap and frequent means of communication between the different islands, and having regard to the fact that the Lords of the Treasury, in a Minute dated 14th June, 1890, recognised in how large a manner the convenience and business of the West Indian Colonies depended upon the punctuality and absolute regularity of their communication with Europe and with each other he will state what steps it is proposed to take to remove the present cause of complaint.
  MR.SYDNEYBUXTON: The question of providing regular mail facilities in the West Indies is receiving careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite announcement on the subject.

  Stornoway Post Office,
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state when it is proposed to proceed with the erection of a new post office at Stornoway, which was sanctioned some time since.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The original plans for the Stornoway office required modification, and the revised plans are now under consideration. The
  1368
  provision of a new office is a matter of urgency, and I hope that the building will be begun soon.

  Post Office Savings Bank Frauds.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state how many Post Office Savings Bank depositors have been defrauded during the current year under the new system of payment on demand; and has the amount lost by such depositors been made good by the Department.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: During the current year, fraudulent withdrawals on demand have been made from the Savings Bank accounts of 39 depositors, the amount in each case being necessarily less than £1. The total loss was £35 8s. 7d. This has been made good by the Department, except in sixteen cases, where the depositors elected to give a discharge, the amount so made good being £21 Is. 7d. The total amount withdrawn on demand during the same period was about £1,700,000, and the number of withdrawals over 2,000,000.
  MR. J. WARD: When the right hon. Gentleman says the loss was made good by "the Department," does he mean the Post Office, or the Post Office officials who were unfortunate enough to make the payments?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think in this case it was the Department, not the employees.

  Education Ballots and Inquiries.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education upon whom the cost of ballots and public local inquiries under Clause 4 of the Education Bill will fall.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,: The cost of public local inquiries will be borne by the local education authorities. The question of the ballots will be dealt with in the regulations for ballots which, as promised, are being prepared and will be in the hands of Members on Saturday morning.

  Regent Street.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to rebuild Regent Street with a colonnade on each side; and, seeing that the original colonnade in the Quadrant was removed, as it was found to be objectionable and to render the shops too dark, and that colonnades are out, of place in this dull climate, and are never built now even in the city of Paris, whether he will give this proposal his most serious consideration before agreeing to it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,: I understand that there is no intention of rebuilding the street with a colonnade.

  Licence Compensation.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has boon drawn to the judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Kennedy in the case of Ashby's Cobham Brewery, prescribing that compensation authorities, in fixing the amount of compensation payable in the case of refused licences, must have regard to the particulars of the amount of trade done on the promises; whether the Inland Revenue would be willing to state any particulars known to them of the amounts of either spirits or beer supplied for a given period to any promises the licence of which has boon refused, if any compensation authority asked them for the information in such a case; and whether, in order to assess the annual value of all licensed promises for purposes of income tax under Schedule A, the Inland Revenue intend to adopt the same method of ascertaining their real value as is prescribed by Mr. Justice Kennedy for ascertaining the value in cases of compensation.
  *MR. McKENNA: The judgment is engaging the attention of the Board of Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue have no information in regard to the business done in particular house which would enable thorn to supply details of the kind likely to be of use to compensation authorities
  1370
  The Answer to the third part of the Question is in the alfirmativo—in so far as rests with the Board, and in so far as they may be able to obtain the necessary information which under the existing circumstances they do not possess. The assessments are, however, actualy made by the general commissionersl of each district and not by the Board.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: Surely some of the information could be obtained from the stock-books, which licensed victuallers have to keep and which are open to inspection by officials of the Inland Revenue?

  Richmond Park.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I bog to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that the speed limit in Richmond Park is constantly exceeded, to the danger and inconvenience of the general public and to the injury of the roads; and, if it is found impossible to deal with offending motorists, will he consider the advisability of closing the park to motor traffic.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HAKCOURT,): I am aware that the speed limit in Richmond Park is sometimes exceeded: from the fact that 44 motorists have been summoned and fined within the last three months the hon. Member will be satisfied that I am taking steps to deal with offenders. I am not at present prepared to consider the advisability of closing the park to motor traffic: it depends, however, on the conduct of motorists themselves whether some such step may not become necessary.

  Cheshire Cheese.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: I beg to ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether the Cheshire cheese supplied in the dining-room of the House is invariably the product of Cheshire, or whether it is an American or Canadian imitation; if the latter, whether he will undertake that Members asking for Cheshire cheese shall be able to obtain the same.
  MR. JACOBY: In reply to the hon. Member's Question, the purveyors to the Kitchen Committee

  1371
  guarantee that the Cheshire cheese supplied by them is a genuine article, and is the produce of Cheshire.
  MR. A. L. STANLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the waiters in the refreshment room not falsely to inform Members that the cheese which is called Cheshire comes from America?
  MR. JACOBY: I think the hon. Member mistakes the statement with regard to Canadian Cheddar, which is given with the one shilling dinner, as applying to Cheshire cheese.
  MR. STANLEY: I have not mistaken Cheddar, which is the product of an alien county, for Cheshire, which is a county in which I take a little interest. The Cheshire cheese, I was informed, was really a Canadian or American imitation of the genuine article.
  MR. JACOBY: Then the hon. Member was wrongly informed.

  Wye Salmon Fisheries.
  MK. WEIR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that in 1901–2 a bye-law was passed by the Wye Board of Conservators, and sanctioned by the Board of Trade, which prohibited under heavy penalty the use of the drift net in the commercial salmon fisheries of the Wye in Herefordshire for the fixed period of four years from that date; is he aware that, although the operation of this bye-law has proved disastrous to the fishermen formerly engaged in the salmon fisheries, the Wye Board of Conservators have ro-enacted the bye-law for a further period of three years from 16th August of the present year, and have applied to the Board of Agriculture for confirmation; will he state whether he has received any petitions or memorials praying that his sanction will not be given to such bye-laws; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table of the House before coming to a decision.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We have received from the Wye Board of Conservators an application for the confirmation of a bye-law
  1372
  prohibiting the use of the drift net in inland waters for a further period of three years. Certain communications have been received objecting to the confirmation of the bye-law, which will be fully considered by my noble friend before coming to a decision, but it would be contrary to practice to lay them on the Table.

  Sutherland Piers and Harbours.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the necessity of getting a grant of money for the improvement of the piers and harbours in Sutherland, so that the fishermen may be able to carry on their work without undue risk and danger.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Under Section 4 of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of 1897 money is available for those purposes, and the Board have made grants in any case whore, after inquiry, they were of opinion advantage commensurate with cost would ensue.

  Sutherlandshire Steamboat Services.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a regular steamboat service between Lochinvar and Thurso and intermediate ports in Sutherlandshire.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The proposal of my hon. friend will be laid before the Congested Districts Board, but I have further to inform him with regret that a steamer which ran during the recent spring fishing season from Loch Clash conveying fish from ports on the West Coast of Sutherland proved an almost total failure.

  Dunblane.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has received from the town clerk of Dunblane a list of offences, that are committed in Dunblane, and of which frequent complaint has been made to the Scottish Office that they are not being dealt with, and if he has had frequent letters and copies of correspondence submitted to him on the want of the services of the police for the Dunblane Police Court; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SHAW,): I answered a similar Question to this yesterday †

  Killafee Evicted Tenant.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from an evicted tenant named Dominick Maguire, residing at Killafee, Carrigallen, county Leitrim; and if an inspector will be sent down to inspect the farm.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Dominick Maguire an application for reinstatement, and will have the matter inquired into by one of their inspectors in due course.

  Costrea Evicted Farm.
  MR. T. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what the Estates Commissioners intend doing with an evicted farm in the town-land of Costrea, Mohill rural district, county Leitrim, on the Ruthven Estate, which formerly belonged to Patrick M'Loughlin, and contained about 34 statute acres, the rent of which was £22, raised about the year 1874 to £29, when the tenant had to take a lease for 31 years, owing to which the tenant could not avail of the Land Act of 1881, and asked the landlord for a reduction, which was refused, and the tenant was served with a writ for three half-years' rent; is he aware that in 1884 the farm was sold and was bought in on behalf of the landlord for £2; that later on in the same-year the tenant was served with an ejectment and was afterwards decreed; and, seeing that possession of the farm was taken in November 1884, and has since been in the occupation of the estate bailiff, and that last December the Estates Commissioners sent down an inspector to inspect the farm, as the former tenant sent in an application for reinstatement, and that the estate is about being sold, will the Estates Commissioners get instructions not to sanction the sale, unless M'Loughlin gets the option of buying. † See Col. 1052.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that having inquired into the case of the evicted tenant am carefully considered their inspector'; report thereon, they decided in May last that the case was not one in which tho3 should endeavour to effect the restoration of the applicant to the evicted holding.

  Ferns School, Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the work of erecting the proposed two now schools in the parish of Ferns, county Wexford, may now be proceeded with.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education assume that the Question refers to the applications for building grants for the Clologue and Ballindaggin schools, near Ferns. As the Commissioners have now been authorised to proceed with the consideration of applications for grants in urgent cases, the application in question with others of a like nature will receive early consideration, but the Commissioners inform me that they are not in a position to give an immediate authorisation to commence building in these cases. The Commissioners will, I have no doubt, expedite the matter as much as possible.

  Irish Primary Education.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he intends to make any proposals to remedy the grievances put before him in connection with primary education in Ireland; and if he can give any indication of the nature of all or any of such proposals.
  MR BRYCE: I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the lion. Member's Question on this subject on 19th July ‡ The questions involved are most important, but they are also most difficult.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland whether a policy of retrenchment in the cost of the constabulary force in Ireland has the approval of the present Irish Government; if so,
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxi., 408.

  1375
  what stops are being taken at present to carry it into practical operation; and if the Government, with a view to economy, will throw open the positions of district and county inspectors to intelligent, well-conducted constables who have gained their experience in the ranks.
  MR. BRYCE: For the Answers to the first two inquiries I beg to refer to my reply to the (Question of the hon. Member for the Birr Division on Tuesday last † The reply to the concluding inquiry is that every alternate promotion to the rank of district inspector is given to men who have risen from the rank of constable, and promotions to county inspectorships are made from the district inspectors. No change in this respect is at present contemplated.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. gentleman consider the desirability of making more promotions from the ranks?
  MR. BRYCE: That Question will be considered with others.

  Second Term Rent Appeals
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the several cases in which second term rents were fixed by the Land Commission since 1881 to the 31st March, 1906, the old rental was reduced from £2,690,702 Gs. Id. to£1,728,600 15s.11d.; whether in all 14,790 applications to fix first and second term rents were undisposed of on the last mentioned date by the Land Commission and county courts in Ireland; whether he can take any steps for a speedy hearing of those applications so as to ensure that purchase transactions will be carried out on properly fixed rents; and whether he can give any explanation of the delay in fixing rents by the Land Commission in the cases mentioned.
  MR. BRYCE: The Question correctly states the facts as shown by the Annual Report of the Land Commission recently presented to Parliament. The Land Commission inform me that during the throe months following 31st March last the number of fair rent applications undisposed of by the Commission was reduced by over 500. It is no doubt very
  † See col. 722.
  1376
  desirable that the fixing of fair rents should proceed as rapidly as possible, and I have no reason to suppose that the Land Commission are not taking all possible steps to that end. There is every reason to anticipate that with the progress of land purchase the number of outstanding applications to fix fair rents will continue to diminish.

  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of teachers who, having completed a two years course of training in 1900, are now paid a higher rate of salary than £63 per annum, inclusive of capitation; whether he can also state the number of teachers who completed a two years course the same year and are now in charge of schools having an average of sixty or over and are paid at the rate of £63 per annum, independent of capitation; and what reasons are assigned by the Commissioners of National Education for this difference of treatment.
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they are prepared to give the information asked for, but it will take some little time to prepare. From the wording of the second part of the Question, the Commissioners assume that the word "Inclusive "In the first part should read "exclusive." the Commissioners also assume that the information is sought for in regard to male teachers only.

  Irish Intermediate Board.
  MR. BRYCEasked leave to explain to the House, in view of the anticipation he had hold out that the correspondence between Irish Government and the Intermediate Board of Education would be laid in a few days, that he had received a letter from the Secretary to the Board stating that as the members wore scattered all over the country it would not be possible to hold a meeting to draft a reply to his last letter; and the correspondence therefore would not be ready for some time. There was every desire on the part of the Government to publish the correspondence at the earliest possible moment consistent with fairness to the Board

  Newcastle (County Down) Foreshore.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the. President of the Board of Trade whether Lord Annesley holds a lease of the.foreshore at Newcastle, county Down, Ireland; and, if so, can lie say why others, who have made similar applications, have been refused, and on what grounds.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Lord Annesley holds a lease from the Board of Trade of certain foreshore at Newcastle, county Down. Without knowing the special applications to which the hon. Member refers as having been refused, I am unable to state the grounds of such refusal, but all applications are considered on their merits, with special reference to the interests of the public. I may add that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Board of Trade grant leases of foreshore to private individuals unless works are in immediate contemplation.
  MR. SLOANreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had been in correspondence with the Board in regard to a particular case and he had personally brought it to his notice.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the incident had escaped his memory; he would look into it.

  Belfast Dock Accommodation.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether h is attention has been called to the correspondence which has passed between Messrs. Harland and Wolff and the Belfast Harbour Commissioners with reference to the failure of the Commissioners to take the necessary steps to provide proper dock accommodation at that port; whether he is aware that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have stated that within the past seven months, owing to the lack of proper dock accommodation, repairs and work have had to be refused by their firm which has resulted in a loss to the city of Belfast of anything from £200,000 'to.£250,000; whether Messrs. Harland and Wolff, in view of the position matters are now in, have offered themselves to erect a dock if the Harbour Commissioners would supply the ground; and whether, in view of this loss to the trade and working
  1378
  population of the city of Belfast, he will take steps either by remedying the present exclusive franchise system on which the Harbour Commissioners are elected, or by other means, to ensure that so large a sum of money and amount of work will not continue to be diverted from the city of Belfast.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand from the Press that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have addressed the Belfast Harbour Commissioners substantially in the terms described in the Question, and that the Commissioners have replied that they are using every possible exertion to expedite the works in question, and that they are prepared to consider any definite proposal on the part of Messrs. Harland and Wolff for ground to build a graving dock themselves. The Commissioners, whose constitution is fixed by Statute, consists of the Lord Mayor of Belfast ex officio and twenty-one members elected by a constituency of shipowners and ratepayers voting by ballot, and the Board of Trade have no power without legislation either to vary that system of election or to compel the Commissioners to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member. I fully recognise the great importance of this matter to the trade and industries of the city of Belfast and I will communicate with I he Harbour Commissioners on the subject.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a strong feeling in the North of Ireland in favour of assimilating the Harbour franchise with the Parliamentary franchise. Will he consider that?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have had no representations to that effect.

  Belfast Stock Exchange
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if the Dublin Stock Exchange is incorporated or has a regular exchange; and whether the Belfast Stock Exchange Association is incorporated or has a regular exchange.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Dublin Stock Exchange, limited, is registered as a company in Dublin under the Companies

  1379
  Acts and carries on business there. The Belfast Stock Exchange does not appear to be so registered.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is the right lion, j Gentleman aware that the Belfast Exchange consists of a small ring of stock jobbers who never served an apprenticeship to the business. Would it not be in the public interest to hold an inquiry?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have received no information officially.

  Howth Harbour and Ireland's Eye.
  MR. CLANCYI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state who is responsible for seeing that dangerous rocks on the coast are marked by buoys or light; and, if any authority is responsible, whether he will direct its attention to the unsafe condition of the sunken rocks between the mouth of Howth Harbour and Ireland's Eye.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Commissioners of Irish Lights are responsible for lighting and buoying the coast of Ireland, except within the limits of jurisdiction of local lighthouse authorities. As it is doubtful whether the place where it is suggested by the hon. Member that a buoy should be placed is or is not within the limits of the Howth Harbour Lighthouse Authority (the Commissioners of Public Works) I have called the attention of both the General and the Local Lighthouse Authority to the allegation as to the unsafe condition of the sunken rocks.
  MR. CLANCY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reply?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not yet.

  Cock Post Office Overseers.
  MR. A. ROCHE: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General whether overseers in the telegraph department of the Cork Post Office frequently act in the capacity of instrument operators; and, if so, whether a like system obtains in the Dublin General Post Office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Neither in Dublin nor in Cork are overseers regularly employed on instrument work, but
  1380
  it is their duty to be ready to assist at any point where there is special need of their services.

  Cork Telephone Operators.
  MR. A. ROCHE: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the probability of vacancies occurring in the female operators' staff attached to the telephone department of the Cork Post Office in the immediate future; and, if so, will such vacancies be open to competitive examination and due notice given as to date of examination.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not aware that vacancies are probable in the near future, but in any case I have no reason to substitute open competition for the present method of appointing telephone operators at Cork.

  Cork Telegraph Staff.
  MR. A. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to ascertaining the numerical sufficiency or otherwise of the telegraph staff at Cork, he will grant a Return of the waits recorded in that office as having been given to officers in communication with it during the month of June, 1906; and whether, pending such Return, the contemplated reduction of the Cork operative staff will be deferred.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question of the amount of force required in the telegraph department of the Cork office is now under consideration, and the point mentioned by the hon. Member will be looked into in connection therewith; but I do not think that any advantage will be gained by such a Return as that asked for by the hon. Member.

  Killarney Postmen's Loads.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Posmaster-General whether any arrangement could be made to relieve the postmen at Killarney from the work of carrying very heavy loads of mails from the post office to the railway station, which is a considerable distance.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will cause inquiry to be made on the subject and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Dublin Ordnance Survey Staff.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether Mr. John Fagan, late of the Ordnance Survey, Dublin, who was recently, after eight years service, discharged on reduction of the establishment, has been refused the gratuity provided for in such cases by the rules; and, if so, will he explain why.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Under the Treasury regulations temporary civil assistants on the Ordnance Survey are only eligible for a gratuity on discharge or retirement if they have completed seven years service after sixteen years of age. This condition is not fulfilled in the case of Mr. Fagan, and I regret therefore that it is impossible to recommend him for a gratuity.

  The County Magistracy.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister by what process the Lord Chancellor has ascertained the political views of the existing justices of the peace; whether, in view of the fact that the Lord Chancellor regards the preponderance of Conservative magistrates as a great evil, it is proposed to impose a political test upon those who may in future be proposed for appointment as magistrates; and, if so, what method will be adopted to carry it out.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The fact that existing justices of the peace in the counties are by a a very great majority Conservatives is notorious and has never been disputed. What the Lord Chancellor regards as a great evil is this great disparity, and he would equally deprecate a similar disparity on the other side. The question in regard to a test is evidently not put seriously.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: How does the Lord Chancellor propose to make the disparity less without a test?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think by redressing the balance of political opinion as well as he can.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: How is he to I find out?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no difficulty in finding out that which is notorious.

  THE TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  MR. SHACKLETONasked whether the Government, in order to finish the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill tomorrow, would carry the sitting if necessary beyond eleven o'clock.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir. I take a hopeful view of the case; but if the Committee stage of the Bill be not finished by eleven o'clock, we shall continue the sitting until it is.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the Census under any Act of the present session to provide for taking a Census of Production (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.— (Mr. Whiteley.)
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading [October 23rd] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MAJOR SEELY, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said he would, in the fewest words possible, describe the present constitution of the Committee of Defence, and the changes which he respectfully

1383
submitted to the House should be made in that body; also the present drawbacks and the advantages of the proposed change. The present Committee of Defence was formed upon the lines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He thought that was a true historical statement of fact. In 1894 negotiations took place between all those interested in the matter and between the two right hon. Gentlemen mentioned. A letter was written in February, 1894, suggesting that it was necessary for the safety of the Empire that there should be some such body set up. Under a Liberal Government a Committee of Defence was formed. That Committee, however, had no continuity in policy, for it kept no continuous record. It was not until 1903 that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition propounded, first at Liverpool, and then in the House, a scheme for a great Council of Imperial Defence. It was not necessary to remind the House how great were the issues involved in that Committee. How-ever much we longed for peace we could not retain it except by a readiness for war, and this readiness could only be obtained by co operation throughout the Empire. In 1903, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made a statement to the House the result of which was the adoption of a.Resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the House, the ever-growing interests of the Empire demanded the establishment of a Committee of Defence upon a permanent basis. After discussion, and with unanimous approval, a Committee of Defence was founded. This Committee was not quite the same as the one they had at present, but he ventured to assert, with great respect, that neither of them fulfilled the purposes they were designed to serve. What he would suggest was that they could not have a proper Committee of Imperial Defence unless that Committee included, not only representatives from the Colonies and India, but also representatives of the great political Parties in this country. He was aware that this proposal was somewhat novel to the House, but he would endeavour to show that it was not novel in other countries of the world. This
1384
England of ours, which had most complicated problems to deal with—greater far than any continental nation, the United States, or Japan—was the only country where great matters of Imperial stategy and defence were the sport of Party politics. We were the one country of all others where all must co-operate, —Liberals, Labour, and Tories alike— if we meant to maintain this great Empire under its growing burden of taxation and armaments. The modus vivendi with regard to the present Committee seemed to differ from that of the previous Committee. As he understood it the Prime Minister summoned from time to time the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and two representatives of the Services, bringing with them experts. In addition, two members had been co-opted as permanent members, viz., Lord Esher and Sir John French, gentleman who were fully cognisant of all matters of defence. He had made some inquiry into the methods which prevailed among foreign nations who had far less reason for such Committees than we had. He found that in Russia they had followed England's example and instituted a Committee of Defence somewhat on the same lines. In Germany there was no Committee of Defence unless it was the Bundesrath which also included representatives from all parts of the Colonies. In that case the Emperor was supreme and the Prussian Minister of Defence was the chairman. In France a committee had been formed upon our own lines in April of this year. That consisted of the Prime Minister, as chairman, the Minister for War, the Minister for the Colonies, and the Financial Minister. The President had power to preside over the Committee whenever he thought desirable. He (the speaker) had now dealt as far as possible with the arrangements made by foreign Powers for the purposes of defence, and he would point out to the House that whereas all of them were governed under a party system none of them allowed the party system to completely control questions of imperial defence. After endeavouring to show what was our present system and how dangerously it differed from those of every other country he would ask the attention of the House to

1385
some other special dangers which beset us in following our present policy. The present system was to the last degree wasteful, inasmuch as there was nobody to advise each party, and they bid against each other, and made proposals involving large expenditure upon the Army and the Navy. He believed that half the burden we bore was owing to the competition of political parties as to who should produce the best scheme. It made for extravagance, and what was more, it made for confusion and ignorance in the public mind, and tended to produce war. Most people in the country could not understand questions of Army administration and could not follow the system of Army corps. They said it was too complicated, and puzzled by the complication and the differences of experts, they gave up the effort to understand our system of defence Arrogance was the prime cause of war, and arrogance was the child of ignorance There was no curb under the present system upon warlike enthusiasm, and this tended to produce war. Our party system made the co-operation of the Colonies in this matter well-nigh impossibe, because they resented being the plaything of English political parties. Party Government might be a good thing, and was a good thing within these islands, but a party caucus was a bad thing with which to govern the Empire, and we came up against this bed rock difficulty when we went to our Colonies and asked for their co operation and contributions. He thought a new plan ought to be tried on the lines he had indicated. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition would say that the first difficulty was foreign policy, upon which strategy depended. To that he would reply that, since Lord Salisbury made his famous speech about the wrong horse, foreign policy had been removed entirely from the realm of party politics. This, therefore, was a peculiarly favourable moment to attempt the plan he advocated. It might be held, again, that one party might be for economy and the other for extravagance. Here, again, this was an opportune moment, for everything that had happened since the beginning of this new Parliament had shown how great was the agreement of parties on the broad lines of policy in regard to economy. The constitutional difficulty, he admitted, was the greatest difficulty.
1386
The responsibility of the Cabinet must be maintained. But the Committee of Defence was not, and would not be, an executive body and the centre of power. It would be, consultative and advisory, and he urged that it was vital to make that source of information and advice as wide as possible. The right hon. Gentleman himself had said that the Committee of Defence, when it came to a decision, did not bind itself or the Government or its successors, but was a source of information common to both parties. That being so, Cabinet responsibility remained, as it was absolute and complete. He believed much good might come from some such scheme as he had advocated. Its advantages were manifest. First of all, there was the advantage of economy if we had a continuous policy based upon a continuous source of knowledge, because we should not fly from one policy to another and a party would not waste millions of money in order to dish the other party. Such a scheme would also make for peace and render Imperial co-operation, which had broken down again and again, possible. He was convinced that the Empire could not continue unless it was held together by some bond, and there were only two—mutual profit and mutual sacrifice.
For various reasons the profit basis was inapplicable for the moment to this Empire. There remained the community of sacrifice. If we could bring the Colonies to co-operate with us in the defence of the Empire he was convinced that they would not shrink from responsibility, and there would then be an end to these senseless bickerings as to whether the Colonies had, or had not, subscribed enough. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the question to add the words ' upon this day three months.' "—(Major Seely.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid it was not the first time he had risen in this House to support the views of his hon, friend. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the present Defence Committee, although a useful

1387
one, was not quite so effective as it might be, and had pointed out the process by which the Defence Committee had risen from its embryonic stage to its present and effective operation. Lord Rosebery recorded his idea that in regard to defence there should be no parties but only one great Parliament representing the general interests of the United Kingdom and the Empire. If that idea did not take with the British people, and this idea on the other hand became effective, he still believed that Lord Rosebery and the two right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench who were responsible for the Committee of Defence had done great service to the Colonies and the Empire in this regard. But our Colonies as well as the present Opposition in Parliament ought to be represented on the ideal Committee of Imperial Defence. It was most essential that the Colonies should be admitted to the councils of the Empire. A good deal had been said about the non-contribution by the Colonies to naval defence. But the House ought to know the position of the Colonies. It was true that the Colonies had had no education in matters of defence until the last fifteen or sixteen years. It was only about fifteen years since that Australia began to contribute to the Navy. Canada had not contributed at all to the Empire's defence until this year, when she had taken over the fortress at Halifax, and had become responsible for that, which had previously been a burden borne by the United Kingdom. The reason why the people of Canada had not contributed before was because they were a continental people and had no idea that their produce had to be protected on its way to this country. The statesmen of Canada had not been educated to contributing to Imperial defence. He was told by a right hon. Gentleman in Canada only recently that all the Powers in Europe were vieing with each other as to which should have the largest army, and that it was simply national glorification. But he pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that if Canada wanted to have markets for her productions in China or Japan and prevent the interference with that open door by Russia or some other Power we must have sufficient power behind us to enforce
1388
our claims. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there was a good deal in his argument. He could assure the House, however, that the change of public opinion in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand upon this question within the last ten years had been enormous. He appealed to the Prime Minister to consider very carefully whether it would not be well to invite colonial Parliaments to appoint permanent representatives to the Defence Committee. If the Colonies were admitted, members of both great political parties at home must be admitted, and the Government should have no fear in entrusting the larger secrets of policy to the Opposition which might confront them at any particular time. There was such a high patriotism in the House of Commons that this confidence was never likely to be abused. So far as the Colonies were concerned it was absolutely necessary that there should be constant evidence from the Colonies and India. They had something like it in the Council that advised the India Office. There should also, so far as foreign Powers were concerned, be a knowledge that should be common to statesmen on both sides. He believed economy would be greatly increased if a general knowledge of policy, which must more or less lapse when a Government went from office into opposition and lost its hold on the entire policy, were extended to the statesmen of the Opposition. There must necessarily be a loss to the country owing to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front Opposition bench were without information which would enable them to see the direction of the policy of the Government. They could not admit the Colonies unless they admitted the representatives of both Parties. They ought not to admit the representatives of both Parties unless they admitted the Colonies, or they would be without that great scheme of co-operation which he believed was the idea underlying the action of his right hon. friend as the Prime Minister of the time in establishing and inaugurating this Committee of Defence. If that were done they would have gone a good way towards lifting the Departments concerned with foreign and colonial affairs, and the Navy and Army, out of the sphere of acute controversy. He did not believe

1389
there was a single Member in this House who enjoyed controversy so much that he would not be willing for patriotic reasons to sink Party for the moment in order to secure freedom from those acrimonious debates which brought governments into difficulties, and, after all, served no purpose in Parlamentary life. Unless they had in Parliament ideals they would get nowhere. Many ideals that had been considered impossible had become in the end practical schemes. He believed this one would come to pass sooner or later, and he supported his hon. friend in pressing upon the Government the advisability of accepting his view.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question raised by the two hon. Gentlemen, everybody will admit, is of the supremest interest and importance to the well-being of the Empire. Obviously both the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and my hon. friend have been equally animated by a single-minded desire for the welfare of the Empire as a whole. They have not been advocating any mere Party question, and they have not looked at the subject under discussion from any narrow standpoint. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite surveyed the rise and growth of the existing Committee of Defence, which he told us had been of great interest to himself and others, and he mentioned the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who has been very keenly anxious to see some machinery tried for dealing with these great subjects. Twelve years ago, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman reminded us, the subject was in its infancy. I do not know that my ideas have undergone any fundamental change. It is the fact that since then the Committee of Defence, not precisely on the old lines, was established during the period when I was in office. I am not sure that the character of that Committee is even now perfectly understood by the House or by the public. I do not, in the first instance, regard it as in any sense an alternative either for Cabinet rule or Cabinet responsibility. The Cabinet of the day is and must remain responsible for the whole policy of the country, whether it be connected with the size of our armaments, the management of our Colonial affairs, or the direction of our foreign policy. But I go
1390
further than that, and say that the Committee of Defence cannot really be dissociated to the extent my hon. friends imagine from the Ministers of the day who are directly responsible to this House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that in making the Prime Minister head of the Defence Committee we were violating the practice which had been universally observed in foreign countries, because, he argued, the Prime Minister of the day is a Party leader, the head of a Party opposed to another Party, and if you put him at the head of the Defence Committee without the co-operation of the other Party you make that Committee what the Cabinet by common avowal is, and must be, a Party organisation. The Committee ought, on the contrary, so runs the argument, to be above Party. I would ask, in the first place, whether it be really true that foreign nations have been able to eliminate this element of the Party system from their Defence Committees. I gather that we are to a large extent the initiators of this policy, and that other countries have followed in our footsteps, if I may say so—a great compliment to the work we have endeavoured to carry out. But in following in our footsteps have they been able to avoid what the hon. and gallant Gentleman regards as a grave danger and serious evil? I am not sure that he has made out his case on that point. There is no exact parallel between the position in the United States, for example, or the French Republic, and the position of the British Prime Minister. Neither is there any exact parallel between the position of so carefully constitutional a Monarchy as ours has become and any foreign Monarchy I know of. It is rather dangerous to make comparisons where an exact parallel is not possible. I will venture to suggest two things. I do not believe the President of the United States can avoid having a Party side to his duties—he is elected by a Party. He has, of course, great national obligations which overpower the Party aspect of his position, but I imagine it is never wholly and absolutely eliminated. On the one side, then, there must remain, some Party element in the position of the President of the United States, and on the other, am I not right in saying that the position of Prime Minister of this country is not

1391
wholly Party? I do not believe any Prime Minister has ever considered himself as merely a Party leader. He is a Party leader, he fights for his Party, and in the nature of the case indulges in the day-to-day polemic of Party warfare; but every Prime Minister is and must consider himself as the representative, not merely of his Party, but, for the time being, of the country as a whole. This is an aspect in our affairs which the Opposition of the day are quite ready to acknowledge, and which we are anxious to see as far as possible maintained. It would, I think, be a great travesty of the British Constitution to say that the Prime Minister of the day is merely a Party leader, and I do not think it is an accurate representation of any Party Government to say that the President of this or that Republic can wholly remove himself from Party ties. The second comment I have to make is that, as far as my judgment and knowledge go, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has exaggerated the Party aspect of the Committee's work. He told us that one great cause of the increasing cost of armaments in this country or France is the rivalry between two Parties, each of which comes into power resolved to find some scheme different from that of its predecessors, and better, but which it costs a great deal of money to put in operation. I believe that would be an entire misrepresentation of the attitude of successive Governments. I am not going to minimise any differences there may be on questions of armaments on the two sides of the House; but, depend upon it, there never was a Government in the world who wished to spend money simply for the purpose of preparing some brilliant and popular change in order to eclipse what their rivals had done, and to claim some special credit for it. There may be some Gentlemen in this House who may be under the impression that sometimes gets abroad, that Governments like expenditure. No Government does. There may be extravagant Governments, or Governments that are accused of extravagance; but there never has been a Government in the world which liked spending money, because nothing is so embarrassing to a Government, or produces such interal
1392
friction in a Government. Nothing produces such difficulty in this House or such unpopularity in the country. Let hon. Gentlemen put it out of their minds that any Government would be so absolutely idiotic as heavily to burden their finances, not for something that is of Imperial importance, but merely in the hope that it will produce popularity on the platform. I, therefore, venture to say that inasmuch as no Government indulge in expenditure merely for the sake of expenditure, you do not avoid expenditure by putting members of the Opposition, whether Radical or Unionist, on the Defence Committee. Then comes the question, how are you going to work this extended body? As I conceive the Committee of Defence, it is a body summoned by the Prime Minister to assist him in dealing with matters that are outside the purview of any single Department, and it is his business to decide the heads of what Departments and what experts are to be summoned to a meeting of the Defence Committee. It is quite true that the Parliamentary heads of the Army and Navy and the experts of those two Departments must be summoned, because almost every question of Imperial defence, and strategy closely touches both of them. But it is not always necessary to summon, for instance, the Foreign Minister, who is perhaps the hardest worked of all Ministers. If some matter arises which touches him, of course he comes. It is the same with the head of the Colonial Office. To always summon the heads of all the Departments to the meetings of the Defence Committee would be a waste of time and labour. There is that elasticity in the constitution of the Defence Committee, as I conceive it, by which the Prime Minister may decide for himself whose advice he will ask for as occasions arise. That being the constitution of the Defence Committee, so far as this country is concerned, the question comes, what is its relation to the Colonies? Of course, I think the Colonies should have at command a place on the Defence Committee, and that place is open to them as the Defence Committee is now constituted.
MAJOR SEELY: They will not come.
MR. A. J. BALPOUR: But they have come. We had a Minister from Canada who gave us most valuable information on certain aspects of the military defence of Canada. I remember also that the Australian Colonies consulted us on matters of defence, and we were able to give them assistance for which they were very grateful. I quite agree that the representatives of the Colonies would not come habitually. There is no need that they should come habitually. Remember that the interest of the great self-governing Colonies in the question of Imperial defence is largely naval; and if they are assured that we are keeping up an adequate Navy, so far as we are concerned we protect them from all over-sea dangers which they have to fear. Of this I am confident, however you may model or remodel your Defence Committee, you will never induce the Colonies to give us here complete control over the military forces which they maintain and for which they pay. We must accept facts. There is no use kicking against the pricks. We must adapt our military system to what is 1he ultimate constitutional necessity of the Empire. That of course, makes it less important that the Colonies should have permanent Members on the Defence Committee; but if ever an emergency arises in which they wish to co-operate with us the Defence Committee, as at present constituted, can adopt the means precisely suited to meet that emergency. Therefore, I am not at all sure that the gains which the hon. and gallant Member anticipates from his proposed reconstitution of the Defence Committee are at all likely to be attained by it, while the change itself would carry with it evils of a special character. The hon. and gallant Gentleman desires that the Leader of the Opposition should once a week sit among the Ministers of the Government to which he is opposed and share their most intimate counsels and some of the most difficult problems with which they can concern themselves.
MAJOR SEELY: I hope I may explain that that was not my suggestion at all. That position, of course, would be ridiculous. What I contemplated is that the Leader of the Opposition should sit
1394
on the Defence Committee, say every three months, not to discuss details as to single battalions or single ships, but questions of great Imperial strategy.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not quite apprehend the character of the work done by the Committee of Defence. It never discusses single ships or single battalions. These are questions for the First Lord of the Admiralty and the War Secretary. Even when we determined to make a change in Army armaments, deciding that there should be two types of guns— 18-poundors and 15-pounders—the matter never came before the Committee of Defence. It was decided by the Cabinet on the advice of the War Minister and the experts of the Department. The question intimately concerned Imperial defence in one sense; but it did not belong to the class of questions which, I think, can with advantage be brought before the Defence Committee. If the great problem, as I conceive it to be, of the defence of the North-West frontier of India should arise, you could not deal with it by itself. It could only be dealt with in co-operation between the Home Government and the Indian Government. Therefore, it comes, in my view, within the purview of the Defence Committee. I can well understand also that the Defence Committee might be asked to consider or reconsider such a problem as the two-Power standard for naval defence, for it is a question that touches so many interests that it cannot properly be regarded solely as a naval question. The Committee of Defence never has been, and never ought to be, concerned with the small matters of Departmental administration. But does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see that it would be impossible to work his system under which the Leader of the Opposition is to be called in by the Government every three months to discuss big questions of Imperial defence and strategy? Just consider what the position would be if I were called in for consultation by the Government during the past six months. There is no doctrine more clear than that it is the gravest mistake to diminish the amount of your regular forces until the expansible Army on which you have to rely in the event of a

1395
sudden struggle for national existence is in working order. The Government take exactly the opposite view. They are sanguine that they will be able to find an expansible Army.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,indicated dissent.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well I can only read their speeches in our three Parliamentary debates as meaning that the Government have absolutely resolved that the Regular Army is to be largely diminished, although they have not got anything like an expansible Army. Suppose I had been present at the discussion of that great question, I should have urged on the Defence Committee what I am now urging. I should be able to cross-examine the members of the Council and the right hon. Gentleman. We should not agree, and I should come down to the House armed, illegitimately armed, with all the information which I had been able to extract from them and their experts. I should be in a false position, and I feel quite sure they would be; and I do not think for a moment they would have accepted any person on the Committee, knowing that his views differed so profoundly from their views, who would have every chance of forging weapons in their inner councils by which to attack them. Supposing I had been present during the last few months when naval policy was under discussion, and finding that the Prime Minister did not hold the two-Power standard in the same sense that I do, which I believe is the fact. The two-Power standard of naval strength as I understand it, is that we ought to have a Navy equal to deal effectively with any two Powers that can be brought against us. In my view that means a Navy not strictly and mathematically equal to two other great naval Powers, but a Navy with that margin of safety without which you could not with serenity enter on a struggle on which the very existence of the country depends That is not the view of the Prime Minister. His view, as I understand it, is that the idea that France and Germany would ever combine against us is so remote that you may put it out of account.
1396
That is an interpretation of the two-Power standard absolutely different from the way I look at it, and one most menacing to the safety of the country. The idea of imagining that international friendships are of s t permanent a character that you may put aside absolutely the idea that your friend of to-day may not be your enemy to-morrow is not an adequate basis of national defence. I say you must go beyond mere probability. If you ask me my opinion upon foreign relations, I should say it is most improbable that we should be at war with France and Germany combined in the next two or three years; yet I say, nevertheless, that to put ourselves at the mercy of a coalition of those two Powers, even if it be an improbable contingency, is insanity from the point of view of Imperial defence. But that is the view of the Prime Minister. And how is it possible that people who differ so fundamentally as he and I upon that question could possibly come to any useful agreement sitting round a table? The Government have given two absolutely inconsistent accounts in the two Houses of why they have diminished their shipbuilding programme. In this House the explanation vouchsafed had something to do with The Hague Conference, and for the rest it was entirely based on the opinion of the Naval Lords, of which no account was really given. It appears from the statement of the First Lord in another place that the diminution was not concerned with The Hague Conference, but that the Admiralty were not satisfied with some of their plans, and they wanted to try further experiments. They were two quite different accounts. On this Question of the two-Power standard we have reached a fundamental difference between the two sides; and if the Prime Minister's views are shared by his Party, I say a more dangerous policy than that now initiated in regard to the Navy has never been made before, and it is one which I believe, when the country understands it, the country will not readily endorse. Had I been asked to go to Whitehall when this question was under discussion, who knows but I might have been so eloquent on the two-Power standard, or so strong on the question of getting your expansible Army into a fit state for fighting European

1397
Powers before diminishing your Regular Army, that I might have persuaded even His Majesty's Government? But in soberer moments I should think it extremely improbable that I should have been able to move them by any counsels I could give them. The position is one into which no Leader of an Opposition ought to be put. The reasons I have put forward make me doubt the practicability of such a plan. We have to work this country on the Party system. I have never disguised from myself the inevitable dangers which are inherent in that system, but neither have I declined to recognise its great advantages. I believe a strong and homogeneous Government, even though I differ from it, is better than a weak and hybrid Administration; and, though I honestly admit I do not think the Party system is working well at this moment in the best interests of the Empire, I do not believe it will be improved by any admixture in its councils of an Opposition element, even if it be as patriotic, single-minded, and able as we may hope some Oppositions are.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): My hon. and gallant friend who introduced this subject, if I may use a homely phrase, has caught a Tartar. He proposed in the most amiable and non-Party spirit to make a certain alteration in the constitution and practice of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the right hon. Gentleman has made this amiable non-Party Motion the occasion for a vehement, sustained, and argued attack upon, first, the military, and then the naval policy of the Government. Of course everything is lawful on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, but it is rather hard on my hon. and gallant friend that his innocent proposal should be made the vehicle for a speech of that kind. I do not want to use strong epithets, but I could repeat something of what I have said before in regard to some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I will deal in the first place with the Committee of Imperial Defence. I have never been strongly prejudiced in favour of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I was
1398
always afraid it might get beyond its proper bounds, that it might interfere with the responsibility of the Cabinet and the Ministers charged with the two great Departments, and that, therefore, the results might be unfortunate in the interests of the country. I confess that I have modified my opinion in this respect, and I think that these dangers and evils have been avoided.
MR. A..J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When we came into office I found a certain amount of trepidation.—so strong had been the opinions I had expressed about the Committee—lest there should be some interference with its action and an alteration of its powers. But I said to those who approached me on the subject that it was to continue exactly as it was until I found practically what its working was, and if we had any reason to alter it we should do so; if not, we should do our best to continue it efficiently. My experience of this Committee has been most satisfactory. I think that my hon. and gallant friend a little mistakes its proper function, and from a greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman its creator and author, he seems also to have mistaken its function. The Committee of Imperial Defence is an opportunity for the Government to fortify itself with regard to the naval and military policy and the general defence of the Empire by the direct opinion of the best experts in the two services. The naval and military authorities meet round a table with the members of the Government and discuss all the technical questions which are brought before it, but it has nothing to do with policy, nothing whatever to do with the naval and military policy on a large scale. To my mind it has nothing to do with the question of what is the standard of two or three nations we should be equal to. What they have to supply is the information how we can best equal these if we wish to do so, but it is the political Members of the Cabinet who have to determine the policy of the country, with the expert assistance and the technical knowledge necessary to carry out that policy. Therefore the right

1399
hon. Gentleman, if he had been fortunate or unfortunate enough to be summoned to one of our meetings, would not have been asked whether he agreed with me that some standards laid down for the Navy are excessive and possibly in their nature absurd. He would not have been asked to agree with the Secretary for War as to whether the reductions in the Army could safely be made with the prospect which is before us of being able to create, expand, and develop a force sufficient for the defence of the country. Those are questions of high policy with which the Cabinet deals, but which are beyond the ken, in that stage of them at least, of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The right hon. Gentleman also would have been in this position. He would have been among men who had a very easy means of knowing what the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman were, because the discussions of the Committee under the last Government, and the conclusions to which they came on one subject after another, are recorded and are open to us for examination; so that we have a perfectly sufficient knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman's views were last year and the year before. My hon. friend thinks that an advantage would be obtained by adding to this Committee other people, either Members of Parliament or peers, who did not belong to the Party in power, and therefore had no direct Ministerial responsibility, and perhaps ultimately introducing also members representing the Colonies and other parts of the Empire. The Colonies and the other parts of the Empire have been consulted and can be consulted fully whenever it is their desire or in the public interest that they should be consulted. To constitute them members of this body would, I think, be a somewhat singular course to take; and I am strongly of opinion that the best course you can take to secure the very best men is to give them direct responsibility, and that the opinion of any person however illustrious and however capable he may be, if brought into a Committee of that kind without official responsibility is not of so much value as the opinion of those who, though in the receipt of public money, are from the position they occupy bound to do their best in the
1400
public interest. I therefore do not agree with my hon. friend that this Committee requires to be supplemented by such aid. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken this opportunity to launch some observations against our conduct within the last week or two in respect to the Army and Navy. With regard to the Navy, he says that he and I would find ourselves totally at variance as to the standard we should set up for the shipbuilding under the Admiralty. He refers to my criticism upon the two-Power standard at the present moment. I do not say that the two-Power standard is not sometimes a very reasonable thing, but when the two Powers you take are the two Powers who are perhaps more likely to be antagonistic to each other than any other two Powers you can find on the continent of Europe, when you know that we are in close relations of friendship with one of these Powers, recently established and improved by public instruments, when we know also that we are on excellent terms both with the people and the Government of the other Power; when we know further that if these two Powers are building ships fast they are building them against each other, to suggest that we should take these two Powers as the test and criterion of how much money we should expend on our Navy and what strength the Navy should be is, I think, to use a phrase already used, what may be called a preposterous idea. I go further and say that, if you examine the present strength and the existing proposals of these two Powers, they will not support the increase which is sometimes advocated for our Navy. Even if you take that as your test, if you examine both the character of the ships and the rate of their building and the other elements which go to support that view, I say that they will not bear out those large ideas of advance that are entertained in some quarters. No; we have done nothing with regard either to the Army or the Navy which has weakened at all the practical strength of the country for defence. It does not follow at all that because you do not build, because you drop an ironclad out of your programme, that you are below the strength required for your purpose. Though the two-Power standard is a convenient standard it is not everything.

1401
and we ought to consider what the requirements of the Navy are, just as we consider what the requirements of the Army are, and see that we have a sufficient Army and Navy for those requirements. That is the business of the Admiralty and the War Office, and the distinguished sailors at the Board of Admiralty, and the distinguished generals who advise my right hon. friend. I do not think that it is any part of the duty of the Committee of Imperial Defence to meddle with and pronounce an opinion on the general policy of the Government either in naval or military matters. I think it can give the Government, as it does, with great effect and success and with the most perfect loyalty the best technical advice on all professional matters which the officers summoned to it are so well qualified to give. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was justified in the attacks he made upon us, or in the use of some of the phrases with regard to our relations to the other Powers. When he conjured up the idea that, after all, friendships and alliances might not last long, and that we must be always ready for an eventuality in all circumstances— when he said that at the present moment, I do not think it was the kind of thing which is likely to conduce to the best interests of this country or of the peace of Europe. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has often shown himself a strong advocate of peace, and I do not wish to insinuate that he has any evil designs on the peace of Europe or against our friendship with other nations. But there are some things about which it may be said that the less they are talked about the better, some hints almost amounting to threats made by public men which had better be left unsaid. He was guarded in his language, but his general tone implied that I was entirely wrong in my supposition and hypothesis that a combination of these two Powers in open warfare against us was an impossible contingency. I think it is unfortunate that he implied that there could be this combination. It is on that ground that I have interfered in the debate, which, as far as it concerns the action and constitution of the Committee, I would much rather leave to my right hon. friend.
*SIR J. JARDINEsaid he had to ask he House to come down from the high level to which debate had been raised that afternoon to an ordinary question of administration. He referred to the leasing of the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries. He did not think any apology was needed for bringing this question before the House inasmuch as Lord Elgin had washed his hands of the responsibility for it and they had been informed by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies that there were great defects in the procedure, and after a series of questions they had been told by the Under-Secretary that it would be an advantage if they could refer to the late Colonial Secretary, who was at that time the candidate for St. George's, Hanover Square, and who now was the actual Member for that constituency. His remarks would be more a criticism of the past Government than a criticism of the present, because Lord Elgin said that the business was practically finished when he took office, and that he had no course open to him in accordance with the precedents of the Colonial Office, but to bring to a conclusion what had almost approached a settlement. The Colony had called in tones of burning complaint for some alteration of this contract, which had caused a great loss to the revenue of the Colony. The fisheries had been leased from 1906 for twenty years at an annual rental of £20,660 which was far too low. In 1904 the net. profits were £61,000; in 1905 they were £153,000; and in 1906, the first year of the lease, they were £89,000, the average of four years being about £80,000. Why, it was asked, had the rent been fixed so low when these enormous profits were being earned? It had been alleged, that an average had been taken over twenty years; but of that period eleven years were barren and belonged to the time before the Government of Ceylon had taken the fisheries in hand, employing for that purpose Professor Herdmann, a learned expert on pearl fisheries, and Mr. Hornell, another marine biologist. The costly investigations and the organised system adopted by the Government had some years ago eliminated uncertainty from the fisheries, and converted them into an industry as

1403
valuable as any of the municipal enterprises in this country which were so jealously reserved for the public benefit. The Colony also spent £10,000 on Mr. Dixon's highly successful machine for separating the pearls, and Mr. Hornell's dredging was reported as successful. So that Governor Blake on June 14th, 1905, wrote to the late Colonial Secretary as follows—
"There seems no reason to apprehend a failure of the annual fishery in future years."
Again in November, 1904, the Government Agent telegraphed that Mr. Dixon's machine prevented loss or damage to the pearls and was working well. The negotiations for a lease of the fisheries began in 1904, but how the scheme originated had never been explained.
However, in December, 1904, the Blue-book showed the late Colonial Secretary negotiating with Sir J. West Ridgeway and a syndicate of financiers. A suggeation had been made that it was necessary to get a firm of high financial standing to come in and take up the matter. The syndicate consisted not of the people of Ceylon, who were interested, nor the great traders of this country, nor of the people of India, but of what was called the South African clique. They called up only £1,687 10s. They spent £200 on obtaining the concession, £106 on registration, and £110 on preliminary expenses —£416 in all—and during the progress of these secret negotiations they actually sold what they had got for £11,000. An increment of that sort gave an indication of what the real commercial value of this concession was. That profit ought to have gone to the Colony and not to this Gulf syndicate. A short time after, a limited company, the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries Company was formed. It was registered on March 3rd, 1906. That company had a capital of £165,000, of which £86,000 was paid up. It was a significant fact that no prospectus was issued either of the Gulf syndicate or the Ceylon Pearl Fisheries Company. Time went on and the arrangements were made and the lease was sent out. He was not conversant with the practice of the Colonial Office on those matters, but it appeared from the Blue-book that the Ordinance which made the lease legal was drafted in the Colonial Office, as was also
1404
the lease of the concession, and they were sent out to Ceylon with the intimation that they should be passed by the Legislative Council of the Colony. The intention to lease these valuable fisheries was not advertised in any way, and this secrecy was one of the matters the public of Ceylon complained most seriously about. The intention was unknown in the great centres where merchants most do congregate either in this country or Scotland or the great centres of the East from which people were attracted to the pearl fisheries in Ceylon. There were many Scottish firms of high financial standing on the shores of the Indian Ocean in Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Rangoon, and Colombo—one might almost say from China to Perim—and had it been known it would have resulted in the real financial value of these fisheries being ascertained by competition and tender. But there was no invitation given to anybody to tender, and the matter was entirely unknown to everybody save the limited number of persons who formed the syndicate. One could not refrain from asking the question: Why was this valuable property allowed to go in this way? Why was it leased at all when it was paying so well? The people of Ceylon would have preferred to have kept it themselves, as he could show from the great complaints that were published in the newspapers. It might be said that it would be difficult for the Government to manage such a thing, and that they had better grant a lease than undertake to manage these fisheries, but that was not the view taken by the independent members of the Legislative Council or the public officials in Ceylon, who had invested in the shares, nor by the firms with German names— Derenberg, Albu, Neuman, Friedlander, Mosenthal et hoc genus omne who make up the limited company. If it were said that they could not test whether the bargain was a good one until twenty years had passed, there were three tests that seemed to show that the bargain had been entirely and tremendously to the advantage of these people who obtained the concession. The first was that £11,000 had been intercepted by the Gulf syndicate even before the company was formed; the second was that the 6 per cent, ordinary £1 shares

1405
In the limited company with only 10s. paid up were now selling at 20s. and 22s., and the third was that the Is. deferred shares were, after a profit of £21,000 had been made, to get as much dividend as the 10s. men. And so these 1s. shares were changing hands already for 11s. or 12s. This was the market valuation; and an old poet had told us that—
"the real worth of anything
Is how much money it will bring."
What seemed to him a departure from the ordinary rule was made by this secrecy in the framing of the Ordinance, while the proposal to lease was given no advertisement of any kind, and in that way this unbusiness like procedure was the cause of what seemed a great injury to the Colony. As there was no rent ascertainable by the ordinary competition of commercial men the Colony, for the next twenty years,would be making great losses. These South African magnates would probably make more out of the pearls than they would have made out of the gold in the whole of South Africa to the great injury and disgust of the Crown Colony of Ceylon.
MR. LYTTELTONobserved that the hon. Gentleman had drawn a very gorgeous picture of the future of this industry. Whether it would be realised—he trusted it might—was a matter of pure speculation. While he was Secretary of State his concern was to see, firstly, whether it was desirable that there should be a lease of these fisheries; and secondly, if it were expedient to have a lease, that the very best possible terms were obtained for it. Throughout the course of this session, various innuendoes derogatory to the honour of Sir West Ridgeway, had been made in the course of sporadic questions addressed to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. As Sir West Ridge way was unable to defend himself, it was desirable to state that there was a misapprehension with regard to his position, and that he was not Governor of Ceylon at the time of these negotiations. On the contrary, he had left Ceylon more than a year, and he was scrupulous not to give anyone any opportunity for saying
1406
he influenced the Government with regard to the negotiations. The negotiations were carried on in Ceylon entirely by Colonel Foss. It was in February,1905,that the Ceylon Government suggested to the Imperial Government as a basis of discussion that £15,000 a year for twenty years would be an adequate and proper basis for discussion. It was not until the August following, after careful thought and assisted by the experts at the Colonial Office, that he, as Secretary of State, sent an ultimatum that the rent which the Ceylon Government had fixed at £15,000 should be raised to £20,000—an increase of nearly 30 per cent. As the House knew, that was after more negotiations recommended to the Ceylon Government for acceptance, and on February 8th, 1906,after the present Government had come into power the Second Reading of the Ordinance took place in Ceylon. The negotiations went on for several months more, and it was not until February l6th this year—long after he had left the Colonal Office and the present Government had come into power—that the Third Reading of the Ordinance in Ceylon was sanctioned. While it would not have been in good faith had Lord Elgin receded from the negotiations after they had reached that stage, if there had been anything in the slightest degree improper or in any sense fraudulent on the part of the syndicate or anybody else it would have been wrong to have continued the transaction. But that was not suggested even by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who said the deal was improvident. No one could possibly impeach Sir West Ridgeway's conduct, because, with full knowledge of all these facts, the Government appointed him Chairman of their African Commission—a position which demanded not only the highest integrity, but also the highest wisdom and prudence. As to why this matter was not put up to tender, there were two very substantial reasons. It was not the practice of the Colonial Office and other State departments to put concessions of this sort up to public tender, because, if they did they either had to accept the highest tender, and perhaps get an undesirable person to deal with, or, if they rejected the highest tender, they had

1407
to enter into awkward explanations. Rightly or wrongly, it was not the practice of the Colonial Office in such cases to put these concessions up to tender. In this case there was an even more conclusive reason. The Government of Ceylon and the Colonial Office were not able to ascertain the terms upon which they were willing to grant a lease until months and almost years of negotiations and after these protracted negotiations it would have been a breach of faith to put the bargain up to tender. He would give the authorities who had been in favour of the course taken. In the first place, the Government of Ceylon were anxious not to retain this property in their own hands. They expressed that desire through the Governor and the executive council unanimously, having been required by himself and by his successor, Lord Elgin, to vote not as officials but as they thought right on the merits of the case. The officials of the Legislative Council were given a free hand in the matter, and they voted to the extent of two-thirds in favour of this concession. It was quite true that some of the members of the Council were paid members, but they were left absolutely unrestricted in giving their opinions. They were men of the highest standing and character, and he did not regard the acceptance of pay for public service as absolutely disentitling those who received it from giving a straightforward and unbiassed opinion on questions submitted to them. It was incorrect to say that no native members voted in favour of this plan. Outside the official members there voted for it not only the representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and of the general European committee, but the representative of the Cingalese provinces. The one-third who voted against it consisted of Colombo representatives and natives. After months of consideration, he himself approved of this bargain, and all his expert advisers at the Colonial Office, and, what was perhaps more important to hon. Members opposite, Lord Elgin after he came into office approved it in a despatch, some part of which he thought should have been read in answer to the questions which had been asked.
THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)asked what the right hon. Gentleman meant by that remark.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he meant, what he said. In the course of these sporadic questions, in which, he understood, allegations of bad faith were being made, it would have been better not to withhold the expressed opinion of the present Secretary of State.
MR. CHURCHILLthought the right hon. Gentleman's complaint against him was undeserved, as the despatch had been published in the Blue-book and had been laid upon the Table of the House.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid it would have been better, considering the imputations that were being made in certain quarters, that a few lines, at any rate, of the despatch should have been read to the House in order to have dispelled the imputations when they were first made. Lord Elgin wrote, on 9th May, this year:—
"In the present instance I am not called upon to say more than that the lease appears to me to have been drafted with a sincere desire to safeguard to the utmost the property and interests of the colony. It may be true that the development of the fishery upon a scientific system offers good prospect of a greater return in the future than has been obtained in the past, and affords at least the hope that the barren cycles which have been so common in the past will not recur to the same extent. But the operations necessary to that end are, as you are well aware, of a highly technical and experimental character, and I am very doubtful whether any machinery which could be set in motion by the Government would be suited to develop processes at once so doubtful and so delicate. In twenty years time the Colonial Government will receive back the fishery, not only intact, but in the most perfect state to which commercial enterprise and scientific methods can raise it, and in the meanwhile a regular and substantial payment is assured upon which the Government of Ceylon can count with certainty in their financial arrangements. Twenty years are, no doubt, a considerable period in the lifetime of individuals; but if within that time all the resources that science can contribute towards systematic development of the fisheries will have been applied and thoroughly tested, the period will not, I think, be regarded as excessive or unfortunate in the history of a fishery which has lasted for more than 2,000 years."
That was the deliberate judgment of Lord Elgin. With all this weight of.

1409
authority he had cited, the responsibility of any Secretary of State would have.been very grave in rejecting a lease of this kind. But he did not wish to shelter himself behind authorities. What were the merits of this case? For 100 years the net produce of this fishery had.averaged £10,000 a year, and for the last twenty years it had averaged £20,000 a year, including the biggest year ever recorded. The rent obtained was £20,000 a year—not a bad beginning—and the company had come under obligations to.spend, if reasonably required, 3,000,000 rupees on the fishery during the currency of their term, to do nothing which was injurious to the fishery, and not to fish at all during the last three years of the term if necessary and desirable. These things were matters of certainty, and it was an administrative advantage for the Colony to be able to make their financial calculations with certainty. It was hoped that by scientific cultivation the fishery would prosper, but that cultivation must be constant and continuous. This fishery it was hoped would prosper more when the large development expenditure which was provided for had been made. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies would sympathise with this because he had always been a great advocate of economy, and had distinguished himself as an economist and a critic of Governments for their lack of economy. For many years not a single pearl was obtained. That was said to be due to the terrible play of wind and tide upon the banks on which the oysters matured. It was therefore suggested by the scientists that the oysters when a year old should be transplanted from the exposed banks to banks less exposed. But that transplanting would cost a lot of money, a fact which operated on the minds of the Legislative Council in deciding to lease the fishery. Another scientific suggestion was that large quantities of matter should be brought from a distance with which to stiffen the banks on which the oysters were bred so as to resist the operations of wind and tide. Suppose that tons of this matter were cast into the sea year after year and the result was fruitless? He could well imagine the lecture which the Under-
1410
Secretary as an economist would administer in these circumstances to the Legislative Council if the fishery were retained in their hands. In his own experience the golden promises of scientific men had been too often falsified for him to place any great confidence in them. At any rate, it was certain that the expenditure to be made on the improvement of the fishery could not have any good results for two or three years. So much for the hopes held out by the scientists. What was the estimate of business men? In the year 1903 or 1904 this concession was offered to four of the largest firms in London at a rent of £12,000 a year. They all refused it on the ground that it was too speculative.
MR. CHURCHILL: When was this?
MR. LYTTELTON: Before the offer was ultimately accepted. T believe in 1903. These firms—
MR. J. HENDERSON: Name one firm.
MR. LYTTELTON: The names of the firms are—Rothschild, Sir Ernest Cassel, Wernher Beit, and one other whose name has escaped me.
MR. DALZIEL: Were they in possession of the same facts as have subsequently been brought out?
MR. LYTTELTONsaid that was a very pertinent question. He did not think they had before them the whole of the facts which were put before the Colonial Office. But it was important to bear in mind that the rent of £12,000 which these four great houses refused was afterwards increased to £20,000. There were also the important considerations that in addition there was to be a large expenditure on the scientific cultivation of the fishery, and that there was ample security against injury to the fishery during the whole of the period of the lease. The only other charge advanced against the transaction was the secrecy in which it was alleged the matter was kept. There was absolutely no foundation for that statement either

1411
in Ceylon or in this country. References to the proposal were frequent in the Ceylon newspapers in March, 1905. Since that time references to the proposal were frequent. He quoted from the Ceylon Mail, which had now joined the Under-Secretary, to show that the offer to the syndicate was a fair one; and said that as regarded the supposed secrecy the terms were perfectly known so far back as November, 1905, and were the subject of discussion so far back as March in that year. He knew that Members of this House held different views as to what the function of the capitalist was. He knew that some Members thought that all capitalists ought to have a millstone tied round their necks and be thrown into the sea, but in a condition of things such as prevailed in this instance where the Government had to administer fisheries from which there were exceedingly capricious and uncertain results, where one had to make a large annual expenditure and where the revenue was uncertain, that was the moment when the capitalist was eminently suitable to step in to the assistance of the Government. The capitalists might win or lose in the actual working of the lease, and nobody could deny that this was a speculative transaction, but, whatever happened, the whole result of the speculation would be in the hands of the Government with absolute security at the end of twenty years time. Whether the arrangement was right or wrong the future alone could prove.
MR. CHURCHIILsaid that the House would be convinced that whether the right lion. Gentleman judged rightly or wrongly, he had at any rate given the most careful consideration to the question, and possessed himself most thoroughly of the facts. He did tot disagree largely with many of the arguments which the right hon. Gentlemen had used, but he felt it his duty to the House of Commons also to submit to their consideration the other side of the argument. He thought both sides were simply stated, and he thought that they should be balanced one against the other. It was a very diffcult and complicated question, and no one he thought could be blamed
1412
severely for taking one particular view or the other. The right hon. Gentleman appealed a great deal to authority. He quoted various experts, he quoted the Legislative Council of Ceylon, and he quoted a despatch which was printed in the Blue-book, to which he should presently refer. For himself he did not propose for the moment to refer to authority. He would only submit one or two reasonable considerations which he thought must force themselves upon anyone who gave a careful consideration to the details of this transaction. The House was well aware that the basis of the lease was that Ceylon was to receive-£20,000 a year from the syndicate, and that the syndicate bound itself to spend £10,000 a year upon the- development of the fisheries subject to certain restrictions, and it also bound itself to take over the fisheries, as to the value of which the opinions were very divided, for a term of years. It was always a nice question to say what were the proper functions of Government and what were the proper functions of private enterprise. He thought the House of Commons, or at all events this House of Commons, would be inclined to think that public ownership and control were better than private speculative ownership and control, other things being equal. The right hon. Gentleman had explained how he came to fix £20,000 a year. He said that an average of twenty years was the foundation of his lease, and that the Government of Ceylon would receive as much as they had been able to make for themselves by their own unaided exertions for the preceding twenty years. He was inclined to think that to justify in principle the transfer of property from the public to the private interest there ought to be some clear and substantial gain which should determine the decision. Now in the last twenty years there had been eleven or twelve barren years. But the last four years had realised a total, excluding the present year, of £330,000, or an average of about £80,000 a year. But the question was not dismissed when they said that the average profit during four years was £80,000 a year. The sum of £330,000 capitalised at 4 per cent, was something like £12,000 or

1413
£13 000 a year, so that the fact was that the net profit for the last four years would have realised two-thirds of the profit which would be made under the agreement of the right lion. Gentleman during the next twenty years. The right hon. Gentleman went most carefully into the negotiations which extended over two or three years, and the delay had been very profitable to the Government of Ceylon. In consequence of the record fishery of 1905 the Government succeeded in raising the rent from £15,000 to £20,000. He had always heard that procrastination was the thief of time, but in this case procrastination seemed to him to have been particularly profitable. Turning to the future, the arguments seemed to him to show that the late Government were wrong in holding that the profits would be not more in the next twenty years than had been received in the last twenty years. Sir Joseph West Ridge-way obtained a survey by a professor who wrote a most elaborate report, contained in a volume which extended beyond the limits of an ordinary Blue-book, upon the Ceylon Pearl Fishery and the methods which might be taken to improve it. The information and the recommendations contained in that report gave scientific grounds for the belief that the pearl fishery would not only be equal to the fishery in the past, but would be better and more certain in its results. The professor indicated four processes, some of which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, by which the fishery might be made more lucrative and more certain. These included the transplantation of oysters from exposed sands to sheltered beds, and he also spoke of what he called culture. That was the putting down of artificial beds to which the oysters might attach themselves. An ingenious process was also alluded to by which the pearl might be created in the oyster. He pointed out that with new scientific methods and delicate and complicated processes a better prospect was opened up than under the old crude method of diving under the water to bring up the oysters. There was another very pregnant factor which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. He would give the right hon. Gentleman a reason which
1414
had led to the high value in the last four years of the fishery. During the last ten or twelve years there had been an immense appreciation in the price of pearls. It might be conceivably 100 per cent., and there was every reason to believe, surveying the general outlook of the world, that this appreciation would continue. The Continent of America and the great German Empire were producing every day numbers of wealthy people, and the demand for these objects of beauty was certain to increase with the expansion of civilization and with every development in the world. The fisheries in the future would be twice as valuable as they had been in the past, and yet we had bound ourselves not to take any further profit in future from all the resources of science and had cut ourselves off from all the improvement that would be effected in the value of the fisheries by the growing appreciation of the pearl. He thought that these were grave considerations when they were considering this lease on its merits. What was the position of the Government in regard to this matter? The whole tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was frank and manly, and he had come forward and taken the whole responsibility of the lease. When the present Government came into office the right hon. Gentleman had already written to the syndicate saying that he was satisfied with the conditions of the lease. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. If the Government had discovered anything in the nature of fraud they would have been justified in preventing this matter from going further, He was as convinced that there had been no fraud as he was convinced there had been little wisdom. In view of the fact that there had been no fraud it would have been a breach of faith on the part of the Government to go back from a bargain which had been definitely concluded only a few weeks before by the responsible head of the Colonial Office.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Legislative Council had not accepted it at that time.
MR. CHURCHILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman suggested that after having from the Colonial point of view

1415
expressed himself as entirely satisfied with the conditions, the present Government should have telegraphed out that the bargain must be thrown up. The right hon. Gentleman would accept the view that in the absence of anything in the nature of fraud they were not entitled, unless they were to commit an act of bad faith, to intervene in any way. In these circumstances they had tried in the Blue-book to make the best case. They had put forward the considerations which influenced the right hon. Gentleman and which undoubtedly told in favour of the course he adopted. They dwelt on the certainty of the revenues to Ceylon as against the risk, and upon the delicacy of the processes to be employed and the probable uncertainty of the success of the Government in dealing with those processes. They had pointed out that after twenty years had passed the fisheries would come back and all these doubtful experiments, although hopeful, would be in their concluding stage and we would have the benefit of the fisheries in a perfect condition. He considered that those arguments were perfectly valid and good, although it was not possible to consider them except in relation to other arguments which he had thought it his duty to bring before the House. He did not desire to make anything in the nature of an indictment against the right hon. Gentleman, but he must say it was a pity that the Legislative Council of Ceylon had not an opportunity in the first instance of affirming the principle of the lease. It seemed to him that in respect of the tenders, such a proposal as this ought to have been brought before the public in some official manner, in order that the various public bodies might have got into communication with the Colonial Office so as to arrive at the truth. Even if tenders had been called for, the Government was not pledged to take the lowest. The Government was always entitled to investigate the substance and character of the firms which tendered quite apart from and prior to any considerations of their claims upon their merits. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman did not sufficiently appreciate the possibilities of the future. It was a pity not to have waited a little longer in view of the remunerative results of the
1416
delay that had intervened, and it was also a pity that only within eight days of leaving office the right hon. Gentleman wrote the letter which concluded the transaction. Though he had drawn attention to some of the errors in connection with the lease, he was convinced that there had been no fraud, and that it was not necessary for anyone to put a dark interpretation on any of the transactions that had taken place. But some familiar names seen elsewhere had cropped up unexpectedly in connection with these fisheries. It might be that certain people had special aptitudes for finding out the possibilities in connection with precious stones or gold, and whose aptitudes led them almost by a subtle instinct to move to a point where profit could most surely be made. He thought that the Government in Ceylon, when they expressed the opinion that these fisheries were worth £15,000 a year, were expressing an honest opinion, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman in all these negotiations had been animated by the most sincere desire to do right. He was bound to say that the tendering firm had acted in a perfectly straightforward manner. They had been perfectly honest, and, in addition, they had been extremely wise. He heard with very great regret indeed the aspersions made against the part Sir Joseph West Ridgeway took in this business. It was perfectly true that Sir Joseph West Ridgeway had ceased for a year to be Governor of Ceylon before he was in any way connected with any proposal in regard to the lease of the pearl fisheries. It had been suggested that Sir Joseph had utilised special information which came into his possession as Governor. He was informed that that was wholly inaccurate. While he was in Ceylon he had no communication with Professor Herdmann, and had no information as to his investigations except what was contained in the Report of the Royal Society. He left Ceylon in September, 1903, and it was not until June, 1904, that he was invited by Colonel Foss to join a syndicate to treat for a lease of the fisheries. He agreed only on two conditions—that the Colonial Office did not object and that the firm should be of high financial status. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would bear him

1417
out that in any conversation Sir Joseph West Ridgeway had with him on the subject of this lease, he made it clear that he proposed to have a financial interest in the affair. From his study of this question he was convinced that Sir Joseph acted throughout with perfect candour and integrity. His holding was a very small one—1,000 £1 shares and 1,600 1s. shares.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was informed that when the rent was raised Sir Joseph West Ridgeway reduced his holding by a half and advised his friends to do the same.
MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was a fact that when the rise in rent took place Sir Joseph West Ridgeway reduced his holding by one-half. There had been so much questioning upon this subject that he had thought it necessary and right to enter upon the question in detail with the representatives of the parties concerned and to make a frank statement of the case.
MR. MENZIESsaid that he had never made, and he hoped he never would make, any charge against the ex-Colonial Secretary that would give the slightest idea that there had been anything improper or any want of good faith on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. There had been nothing dishonest about the right hon. Gentleman's connection with this matter. He had acted to the very best of his ability. His complaint against the right hon. Gentleman was that he had not shown much business capacity in the matter. He believed that if such firms as Cassel, Beit, and Rothschild had had the same information as the other company the Colony would have had the benefit of £60,000 more per annum in its coffers. For a Colonial Governor, after his term of office had expired, to introduce a syndicate to the Government and then join it himself was a dangerous precedent. He had never supposed that the financial profit of this matter was anything whatever to Sir Joseph West Ridgeway. But was there any precedent for the action of Sir Joseph?
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he understood that in the case of the Burmah mines the chairman of the company was Sir Lapel Griffin, who had only then recently returned from the Indian Civil Service.
*MR. REESsaid as one personally acquainted with Sir West Ridgeway he entirely accepted what had been said as to his connection with this matter by the ex-Colonial Secretary and the present Under-secretary, and he would add that his information was that the details of the transaction were well known to the commercial community of Colombo. But he would pass from that matter, as he thought it had been fully discussed, and would call attention to the position of British Indians in the Transvaal, where they laboured under disabilities which were greater than any endured under the most rigid caste system on the Malabar coast. Having said that everything possible should be done to alleviats the position of our British Indian fellow subjects in South Africa, he drew the line at bringing coercion to bear on the Colony, being convinced that they must be allowed to manage their own affairs, and that when there was a difficulty it could not be got over by urging upon the Colonial administrations sentimental considerations. Turning to the question of the Chinese Customs, according to the exceptionally well-informed correspondent of The Times alterations in the method of management had been made by the Chinese Government in spite of the assurances which had been given to the contrary. He asked for an assurance that the resignation of Sir Robert Hart had not been caused by such interferences on the part of the Chinese Government. He wished also to refer to the question of the increase in the Turkish Customs. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated on Wednesday evening that he had succeeded to a certain position in regard to the increase of 3 per cent, which he was now bound to maintain. He submitted that in point of fact the present Government in December, 1905, formally consented to allow tbe Turks to include military expenditure in the Macedonian Budget. He would point out that Turkey had to faee in Macedonia a heavy

1419
existing deficit caused by military ex-penditure, which was being paid out of the existing Turkish Customs, and if the right hon. Gentleman consented to a further increase of 3 per cent., it was possible and probable that the extra revenue gained would be applied to financing the scheme of the Baghdad Railway. If that wag likely to follow as a consequence of the increase he thought we should not agree to it. But if that railway were constructed, it ought to be an absolute sine qua non that England should have control of the section between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf, and that the rest of the line should be under international control. This project, which was upon a commercial basis at present, by reason of the immense importance of this route to our trade, to cur position in Persia, and to the defence of India, was likely to become of even more importance politically than commercially. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman might have very little to say on this subject, but what he wished to point out was that both in the House and in the country the very great importance of this question was entirely under-estimated. It was a question as important as the construction of the Suez Canal, and it would introduce greater changes into the future of the far East than, anything that had happened since the Suez Canal was constructed. It appeared to him that the Foreign Office was in a position to treat this as an open question, and he hoped the Government would not consent to letting this 3 per cent, go, out of a hope that Macedonia might profit, which was doubtful. Any man who had visited the Turkish Empire would tell them that the abuses and the difficulties which often occurred between the different races which had been brought together under the Porte were due more to ethnical and local conditions than anything else, and that the Porte allowed them all to do pretty much as they liked, provided they kept the peace one with another. The importance of this question was very imperfectly apprehended both inside and outside this House. He hoped the matter would be treated by the Government in the same manner as Lord Lansdowne treated it when he laid down the
1420
doctrine that England must maintain: the status quo in the Persian Gulf at all risks. In conclusion he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would believe that he was not endeavouring to pry into the Foreign Office secrets by bringing this matter forward, and he believed the House would be grateful for anything the Secretary of State cared, to say upon these points.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked the House to turn its attention to the present situation as it affected our Colonial interests in the far East. Our Colonial interest s in China were enormous. In approaching this subject, he was placed in a difficulty owing to the extraordinary fact that the Blue-book or report in regard to the foreign trade of China had not been published by the late Government since the year 1903.. It was almost inconceivable in the year 1906 that a nation with more trade in China than all the other nations put together should not have the trade statistics of the greatest of all neutral markets in the world up to a later date than 1903. There were two or three important questions in the present situation in China to which the House might well give its attention. There was the question of the Chinese maritime customs. The Chinese Government had appointed Chinese officials at the head of the maritime customs. The House knew that many years ago the control of the Chinese maritime customs was placed in the hands mainly of European officials, at the head of whom was Sir Robert Hart as inspect or-general. Various loans had been concluded between China and various. European countries to the extent of £45,500,000, guaranteed on the security of the receipts of the maritime customs, which were to remain under the inspector-generalship of Sir Robert Hart or some other European, but they learnt through, the correspondent of The Times that the Chinese controller who had been put at the head of the maritime customs by the Chinese Government had taken very active steps in the matter of control, and this after the assurance: received from the Chinese Government in answer to the representations of the British Government that the control

1421
should remain in the hands of Sir Robert Hart. In 1899 we were told that so long as British trade was predominant in China so long a British subject should be controller of the Chinese maritime customs. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the House so far as was consistent wth his office a statement of the position in China to-day. These Chinese officials had given orders that no statistical returns or reports should be published in future until they had received their official sanction. That simply meant the establishment of a Chinese censorship and the abolition of the excellent branch by which the Chinese trade had been known to the world. That was a most serious thing so far as British trade was concerned. It meant not only a breach of faith on the part of the Chinese Government so far as the guarantee for the £45,500,000 of loans was concerned, but also with regard to the war debt at the end of the rising in China, which was £64,000,000. But that was not the most important part so far as this country was concerned, because our commercial interests far outweighed any financial interest we might have in the Chinese loans. If the Chinese Government were not compelled to adhere to their engagements it would not be long before Chinese officials would be placed in control of every port through which British goods were sent and would inflict the most serious injury on our trade. Then there was the question of British interests in Manchuria. We learnt from The Times correspondent that the Japanese Government on the one hand and the Russian Government on the other were faithfully performing their pledges with regard to the evacuation of Manchuria, but we also learnt that through three ports in Manchuria, Japan and Russia were sending in goods without the usual import duties being imposed on them. At the present moment only the port of Newchwang was open to the trade of all nations. We knew that the military conditions had imposed on Japan the necessity of delaying somewhat the opening of Dalny and other ports to the trade of the world, but the House hoped to have to-day some indication from his right hon. friend that all these matters were receiving the careful attention
1422
of the Government and that before long the present conditions would be altered and we should have the open door throughout Manchuria for the trade of the world. The condition of things in Manchuria of late had been detrimental to the trade of this country. It was most alarming. In the last four years our trade in Manchuria had diminished by 4 per cent, whilst that of the United States of America had increased 120 per cent, and that of Japan by 300 per cent. This country would be the last to begrudge Japan some considerable commercial advantages as partial recoupment for the enormous sacrifices she had made to keep Manchuria open to the trade of the world. He thought it was only right to draw attention to the change in the position and the diminishing amount of British trade in Manchuria relatively to the trade of our friendly competitors, the United States of America. It behoved the British commercial community to wake up, and to try to ascertain more fully the causes which had led American trade to develop so enormously in the last four years while British trade was diminishing in a country where there was no hostile tariff whatever to hinder the progress and development of British trade. He wished to refer briefly to the question of the non-carrying into effect of the Mackay commercial treaty concluded between this country and China. A communication had been received from seventy of the leading British merchants in Shanghai, calling the attention of the Government to the fact that China ignored the Mackay treaty, or rendered it ineffective in most of its essential points. He was quite aware that certain of its provisions were not to be operative until the other nations had given their assent to the treaty, but that did not by any means apply to the whole of the provisions. One of the provisions, for instance, was in regard to the removal of obstructions, and the making of improvements by the conservancy of the Wangpo River, which was provided for in the Protocol of 1901. So far as we knew, these improvements had not yet been taken in hand. He hoped to hear from the Secretary of State to-night that there was some prospect of this matter being speedily dealt with. Then there was the question

1423
of the uniform national coinage which the Chinese bound themselves to provide for. Years had gone by and, so far from a uniform coinage having been instituted, mints were set up over China which were issuing an enormous quantity of debased coinage, making "confusion worse confounded." This was acting most detrimentally to the commercial interests and real prosperity of China. He asked the Secretary of State whether he could give any opinion as to when we might expect that stipulation on the part of the Chinese Government to be given effect to. Then the abolition of the Likin was dependent upon the agreement of other nations with the treaty which we concluded. He hoped that there was some prospect of the other nations falling in with the treaty which he believed had already been agreed to by Japan, as well as ourselves, and that there was some reasonable hope that in the not remote future this system of internal customs in China which was a restriction and hindrance to trade would be removed. As to the question of the Imperial maritime customs of China, he did not contend that it could be expected that the Chinese nation, comprising nearly 300,000,000 of people, would for a long period allow the administration of their affairs, or even the development of their country, to be largely taken in hand by foreigners. He believed they would take it in hand themselves. He desired that they should do so, because he believed in China for the Chinese. But at the same time, we knew that they had not yet reached that stage. The Chinese had come under certain obligations, and they ought not to be left to their own sweet will until they had properly discharged them. The Mackay treaty included provisions as to the question of mining legislation. The Chinese Government undertook to look into the mining rules in operation in Great Britain, India and other places, and to select such as were suitable to the conditions of China. But so far as he understood, nothing had been done towards the fulfilment of that undertaking. Then there was the question of inland navigation regulations. The House knew with what a nourish of trumpets the Tory Party came down and told them it had come to an agreement
1424
with China for opening the waterways, so that British ships should take British goods to every riverside station in China. He was afraid that the prospect of enormously expanding our trade with China in that way had not been fulfilled. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman, what progress, if any, had been made to secure that the agreement made by Sir Claude Macdonald, in 1898, would be fulfilled. There was no question that in the conduct of our relations with China we must take into consideration the fact that following the example set by our Japanese allies, the Chinese were bound to wake up. They were an intelligent, and in some directions an educated people, and we might rest assured that they would in the future exercise much greater power, influence and force. As to the question of railway concessions, he should like to know from the Secretary of State whether concessions were in danger of being lost to British concessionaires through their failure to fulfil properly their part in the agreements entered into with the Chinese Government. He considered that it was a great misfortune for this country not to have had the largest share in supplying the Chinese Empire, the greatest on earth, with a system of railways. We had taken a back seat altogether in the matter of laying down railways in China, whereas Russia, France, Germany and Belgium had forged ahead, supplying that great Empire with its railways. We had been told that British concessionaires had secured the right to build 2,800 miles of railways in China. He wished to know how much of that work had been done and what further amount of mileage still remained in the hands of British concessionaires. He believed that the Chinese nation ought to possess its railways. He believed in the state ownership of railways, but he saw no reason why European syndicates should not build the railways under proper arrangements by which the lines could be transferred to the Chinese Government as soon as it was in a position to take them over. The Chinese railways paid better than almost any other railways in the world. The only shares and stock in railways which he happened to possess that had increased in the last few years had been those which he

1425
held in Chinese railways, whereas the shares and stock of railways in this country and in other parts of the world had steadily gone down. There was no question as to the profitable nature of enterprise in a densely populated country like China. Why British investors and commercial people had failed to take an adequate share of the trade with China was really past understanding. In spite of all that Tory speakers had said in the last three years, he could only conclude that the trade of this country had been so very flourishing that manufacturers, having their order books full, had not looked for an increase of orders by enterprise in China. The fiscal system of this country, under which we had free imports, enabled us to compete successfully in great neutral markets like that of China.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
Lords' Amendments considered:—
Lords' Amendments to the Amendment in page 27, line 21, agreed to.
Lords' Amendment in page 27, line 21, after Clause 49 insert Clauses 49a and 49b, the next Amendment, read a second time.
*MR. J. O'GRADY,in moving to disagree, said he wished he could move to omit all the Lords Amendments and leave the Bill to deal simply with dock matters alone, but he was told that was impossible, so he had no alternative but to confine himself to moving the Amendment he had placed on the Paper. There had been two Bills on this matter. There was the original Bill assented to by the city generally, which emphasised the principle that rateable value should not be made the consideration of representation in the city council, but that representation should be based upon the number of voters upon the register. The arrangement arrived at, although it increased
1426
the number of wards in the city from nineteen to twenty-two, did not disturb the total number of representatives, because nine members were taken from three wards in the centre of the city which were over-represented and allocated to the three new wards constituted by the re-arrangement. He thought everybody would agree that that was a very fair arrangement and was not objected to in the city generally. As a member of the Bristol City Council he knew the local circumstances. The Bill was presented and then an opposition developed among the members of a political Party which had dominated the city for sixty years, but which had now lost control, hence the second Bill which was now under consideration of this House. He wanted to emphasise the fact that the House of Lords' Committee was in no sense to blame for anything in connection with this Bill. They simply heard the facts presented to them and they did their best in the circumstances. They were without bias in the matter. When this second Bill went back to get the assent of the council to the Lords' Amendments, the whole matter was set before the citizens and they protested vigorously against the change that had been made in the Bill by the Lords Amendments. He did not think he would be saying too much in asserting that the public meeting was packed. A whip had been sent round by the Party who had been responsible for the opposition, and an hour before the meeting was timed to begin it was filled with the partisans of that particular Party. He drew attention to the fact also that this meeting was held in a small hall which could hold not more than 300 persons. The Labour Party with which he had been connected for a long period of years in Bristol felt great offence at the way things had been carried out—offence that a compromise had been effected between two political Parties without consulting the men who were mostly interested—the working classes generally. The result of the changes made in the Bill by the Lords' Amendments was that a new ward was created in the centre of the city and three extra representatives and an Alderman were added to the council. As.

1427
far as he knew the city, he thought that if this proposal were carried the representatives who would be sent to the City Council from that ward would be representative of one political Party from now to the crack of doom. The working men thought that the main principle should be representation based on the number of the voters upon the register. When the public found out the nature of the changes and how these changes had been brought about they held meetings of protest all over the city. Not only trade union organisations but the general body of citizens had expressed a strong protest against the action that had been taken and against the changes in the Bill involved by the Lords' Amendments. They even had the support of the Ratepayers' Association, which might in the nature of things have been expected to agree to representation being based on rateable value rather than on the voters' list. The Secretary of that Association had said that he thought no preference should be given to the educated or moneyed classes above the working classes. That was the whole gist of the protest he was now making. He trusted the House would take into consideration the protest of the citizens of Bristol. It might be asked how it was that they had not carried this protest to the House of Lords itself. They were, however, a poor Party and he understood that they could not be heard in the House of Lords except by counsel, and not having the money to go on with their protest in the House of Lords they had to do what they could in rousing interest in Bristol regarding this change. He hoped in these circumstances the House of Commons would disagree to the Lords' Amendment. They would have liked that part of the Bill to go through which related to dock matters at Bristol, but they had no alternative but to protest against this change by asking the House to disagree to the Lords' Amendments because they held that the gerrymandering which had gone on in this matter was not creditable to the men who had engineered the movement. He hoped the House of Commons would not stultify itself by agreeing to a proposal of this kind.
1428
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—(Mr. O'Grady.)
*MR. W. H. DAVIESsaid he wished to recognise the temperate way in which the hon. Member had proposed the motion. He had not a strong feeling in regard to the way in which the wards of Bristol should be arranged, and he could not understand the strong feeling which had been brought into this question. The Bristol Council desired that there should be a general rearrangement of the wards in order that the urban ratepayers should have a larger share and larger interest in the representation than before. When the Liberal Party succeeded in obtaining a majority in the Bristol Council one of the first things they did was to appoint a committee to consider this question. The desire of the Party was not to rearrange the wards in such a way as to give them a political ascendency. All the Liberal Members would have been opposed to that idea. When the Liberal Party obtained the ascendency after sixty years of Tory Government they divided the aldermen between the respective Parties. At the Committee appointed to consider the rearrangement of the wards both political Parties produced a scheme; that of the Liberal Party was adopted by a majority. When the question came up for consideration before the House of Commons Committee there was a difficulty about locus standi of the Conservative Party who were opposing. Ultimately an arrangement was arrived at that the Bill should go through as unopposed. Upon the sub-committee a gentleman was appointed who represented the Trades Council of Bristol, but he declined to serve. It was therefore not correct to say that the scheme was carried out without any consultation with the Labour Party, and he was sorry any difficulty had arisen, because they had always been very friendly in Bristol with their friends on the Trades Council and had found them good comrades and good citizens. He was very sorry to be in disagreement with them over this subject. The new scheme was adopted by the Council by

1429
a majority of sixty-five to seven votes, so that the scheme which was sanctioned by the House of Lords Committee was one approved almost unanimously by the Corporation of Bristol. Unfortunately, his Labour friends disagreed with the proposal, and petitioned to be heard before the Lords' Committee. They did not appear, and he was sorry they did not seem to know that they might have appeared in person to state their own case. It was assumed, therefore, that the opposition was withdrawn, or was not to be proceeded with. If they had appeared and establish d a strong case against the scheme, the promoters could have withdrawn that part dealing with the re-arrangement of wards. Now if the Motion succeeded, very important clauses would be lost to the city for this session, and as Chairman of the Docks Committee he was most anxious that they should not be lost. Their dock undertakings were most important, and they could not afford to emphasise political differences too strongly. The wards proposed under the present scheme were a great improvement on what existed to-day. The number of councillors and the number of ratepayers in each ward were more nearly equal than before. They were advised that they could not ignore rateable value in considering representation. The scheme was fair and equitable, and one that the House should pass. It was fair and just. He did not desire that the Liberal Party should exercise its majority unjustly against the Conservative Party, and he hoped his friends would be satisfied with the protest they had made and would now allow the Bill to go through.
MR. GIBBSsupported the Bill. The Conservative and Liberal Parties had agreed that some alteration in the scheme was necessary, and at the meeting of the town council that scheme was approved by a large majority. That meeting, he declared, was not packed. It was well advertised and the ratepayers had every opportunity of attending. This scheme involved less dislocation than the scheme originally proposed. It would confer great advantages on the labouring classes and he did not see why they should object
1430
to it. The present scheme of representation was absurd, and if this Bill did not go through the whole thing would have to be dropped.
*MR. J.RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he had been called in as arbitrator in this matter and he was bound from his examination of all the details to agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for East Leeds. In the interests of sound and honest representation in Bristol this scheme ought not to receive the sanction of the House. The Dock Clauses were accepted by the Labour representatives, and those who were responsible for these clauses ought to have been careful not to mix them up with highly controversial matters. The representation of Bristol was bad at the present time, but the present scheme was not fair. Not a single representative of labour committed himself in favour of this Bill. Their fear was that as a matter of fact the scheme contained between Clauses 44 and 55 did not give that foundation of permanency that was necessary. The first proposal made had the acceptance of the Labour Party, the second was opposed from the beginning. It was perfectly true that sixty-five councillors voted for the second scheme, and only seven against it, but five of those seven composed the small but solid phalanx of the Labour Party. Undoubtedly one provision of the Bill should be to provide that the rateable value should be taken into account as well as voting strength, but that provision had been stretched to an inordinate degree in the present scheme. The first scheme to which the Labour Party assented was brought before the people of Bristol with the blessing of the town clerk of Bristol upon it. As a result of alterations made in the second scheme the House of Lords Committee asked that a town's meeting should be held. With regard to the town's meeting he would not say it was packed, as the term had been objected to, but he would quote fro in the Western Daily Press report which stated—
" A special whip had been issued through the Conservative Party, asking their supporters to assemble at the Guildhall at 12 o'clock, an hour before the time of the meeting, and endure

1431
the inconvenience of waiting. As a matter of fact great care was taken that the people who got inside the hall were in favour of the Bill."
He quoted from reports of the meeting to emphasise the point that the Lord Mayor of the City admitted that the hall was not large enough for the purpose of the meeting. The accommodation was only large enough for between 400 and 500 people, and the population of Bristol was 365,000. The town's meeting, as a guarantee that the city had an opportuntiy of deciding upon this important measure, was an absoulte farce. He would deal with the newspapers. As to the first scheme, the Western Daily Press stated—
"If the city had twenty schemes it could not have a fairer one."
The other newspaper said—

"We heartily dislike the new arrangements of the wards."
The case of the Labour representatives was not a party one. Hon. Members would perceive that this Bill had not been properly handled, and that certain things which cropped up into Clauses 44 and 45 ought not to have been there. If this House were going to hold an impartial judgment upon this matter they would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Leeds.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester he had to confess that he should not care to go before him as an arbitrator, because he had not adopted an impartial attitude on this question. The meeting of citizens, to which allusion had been made, was held in the traditional meeting place of the Bristol citizens, which was the centre of civic life in the city. A great deal had been said about the first scheme that was brought in, apparently with the assent of all Parties, except the Conservatives, who, being left out, and having no locus standi made representations to the Home Secretary, and, in deference to their objections, the scheme was withdrawn. A great deal had been made of the fact that one of the sub-committee, a Labour member of the City Council, did not serve; but the fact was that he refused to serve because he could not get his own way. It was not fair to represent that the Labour Party in Bristol had no chance of putting
1432
their views upon the matter before the City Council. The only representations he had received on this matter came from one of the labour organisations of the city of Bristol some fortnight or three weeks ago, and he was convinced that if there had been any large section of the community he represented in this House who felt that their interests were jeopardised by this Bill some form of expression of their objections would have reached him. Supposing the scheme under the Bill came into operation, what would be the effect upon that part of Bristol which he represented? There were large suburban areas which needed representation upon the Council. The votes of something like 6,000 or 7,000 ratepayers were obliterated by the votes of a few hundred. The whole of that inaccurate and unjust representation was modified or done away with by this particular Bill. For the first time this part of the city would have fair honest representation in their local Parliament, and he hoped when the House went to a division the action of the citizens of Bristol and the decisions of the Corporation and the large interests concerned would be upheld.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said the town of Bristol generally was most anxious to have this Bill, which contained many matters of far wider importance than the question of the redistribution of seats. He would have been glad to have had a Home Office inquiry into this question, but it was too late to re-open it now, the Bill having passed through both Houses. When the matter came before the Committee of the House of Commons it was found that both the promoters of the Bill and its opponents were ready to come to an arrangement and the House of Commons passed the Bill on that understanding. Then it was found that the Labour Party were not prepared to agree to the new arrangement. It was impossible for the House of Commons to enter into the merits of a local redistribution scheme of that character. It was far better, he thought, that these matters should be decided outside Parliament by a local inquiry.

1433
But if they did come before Parliament, this House and the House of Lords, being unable to decide them by open debate such as that in which they were engaged, had delegated these matters to Committees, and those were the proper tribunals to settle them. When the matter was before the Committee of the House of Commons the Labour Party agreed to what was proposed. When the Bill was in the House of Lords it was then time for the Labour Party to state their case and ask for the alteration desired. However, the Labour Party did rot appear. They made no representations to the Committee. They were apparently under the impression that they could only do so at considerable expense and by the appearance of counsel. That impression, however, was wholly erroneous.
A LABOUR MEMBER: What chance was there without the assistance of counsel?
MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied that petitioners continually appeared on their own behalf before Private Bill Committees, and in a matter of this kind, which was in no sense a legal matter, a man with local knowledge would probably be able to state his case better than any lawyer. At all events, the Labour Party allowed the matter to go by default, and that being so, he thought the House would be placed in an impossible position
if they were asked to decide now the justice or injustice of a scheme which had passed through Committee and been assented to by the Lords. There were four conceivable courses which could be suggested. They might strike out the whole of that part of the Bill, but the procedure of Parliament did not allow that. The Bill having passed Third Reading in both Houses, the only matters which were still open to debate were Amendments which might be disagreed with by one House or the other. They might put such Amendments into the Bill as would force the promoters to withdraw it altogether. But this was a course desired by no one. They might disagree with the Lords' Amendments and go back to the first scheme proposed. (4) They might agree with the Lords' Amendments and accept the second scheme as it was proposed in the House of Lords. The last two courses were the only two alternatives which would appeal to the House, and seeing that the second scheme secured much greater support in the town council, while they might regret exceedingly that no general agreement had been arrived at in the matter, the only course possible for the House to adopt was to agree with the Lords' Amendments and to reject this Motion.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 139. (Division List No. 300.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Brace, William

Kelley, George D.

Shackleton, David James

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim,S.

Byles, William Pollard

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Snowden, P.

Crooks, William

Mac Veigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Steadman, W. C.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Killop, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Murphy, John

Summerbell, T.

Ffreneh, Peter

Nolan, Joseph

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Gill, A. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White,Patrick (Meath, North)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Wilkie, Alexander

Hazleton, Richard

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Raphael, Herbert H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Higham, John Sharp

Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Mr. O'Grady and Mr.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ramsay Macdonald.

NOES.

Acland-Hood,Rt. Hn.SirAloxF.

Ashley, W. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Agnew, George William

Astbury, John Meir

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Balcarres, Lord

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Barlow, Perey (Bedford)

Hedges, A. Paget

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Barnard, E. B.

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Centra])

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Radford, G. H.

Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

Hills, J. W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Beale, W. P.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rees, J. D.

Benn.SirJ.Williams (Devonp'rt

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Billson, Alfred

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Richardson, A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Houston, Robert Paterson

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Robertson, Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

Brigg, John

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rose, Charles Day

Brooke, Stopford

Jardine, Sir J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brunner, J.F.L. (Lnacs.,I.eigh)

Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

Scott, A.H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen.

Kekewich, Sir George

Seaverns, J. H.

Burns, Rt, Hon. John

Keswick, William

Seely, Major J. B.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Gave, George

Laidlaw, Robert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cavendish.Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lamont, Norman

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Lover, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Clough, W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph (chesh.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Long,Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin.S.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Lupton, Arnold

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cowan, W. H.

Lynch, H. B.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cox, Harold

Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

Sutherland, J. E.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Tennant,Sir Edward (Salisbury

Cremer, William Randal

M'Callum, John M.

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Ure, Alexander

Du Cros, Harvey

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Valentia, Viscount

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maddison, Frederick

Verney, F. W.

Emmott, Alfred

Marnham, F. J.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Essex, R. W.

Massie, J.

Ward,W.Dudley (Southampt'n

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Menzies, Walter

Weir, James Galloway

Everett, R. Lacey

Micklem, Nathaniel

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, E. S.

Whitehead, Rowland

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Whiteley,George (York,W.R.)

Forster, Henry William

Morse, L. L.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wiles, Thomas

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Newnes, V. (Notts. Bassetlaw)

Winfrey, R.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Mr. Howell Davis and Mr.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Paul, Herbert

Gibbs.

Question, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords' Amendments agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," resumed—
Question again proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
*MR. ASHLEYsaid that the principal reason for our taking part in the Algeciras Conference was to safeguard our Imperial interests and to further British trade in Morocco. That was perfectly justified when we considered that Great Britain supplied more than half of the imports, that we took more than
1436
a quarter of the exports and that more than one-third of the tonnage visiting the ports of Morocco flew the Union Jack. He thought anyone who had travelled in Morocco must acknowledge that there were in connection with agriculture and other branches of industry great possibilities. The country was perhaps the most fruitful in the whole of Africa. He congratulated the House upon the fact that our Government before the Conference at Algeciras came to an end, induced the delegates to make communications to the Sultan of Morocco on the subject of slavery. In reply to a question on July 10th last, the Secretary of State informed him that he had received information that the Sultan had given orders that children born free should not be sold in slavery.

1437
That was a step in advance. If this country could interfere, as it did in the case of Turkey, with respect to affairs in Macedonia, he thought we might, as far as we possibly could without coming into conflict with other Powers, press the Sultan of Morocco to put a stop as soon as possible to the public sale of slaves in his dominions. He did not know whether many Members of this House had seen slaves in the flesh or seen a public sale of them. Some years ago when travelling in Morocco, he went down a narrow lane in Morocco City and came, upon an open courtyard, round which there were seated a number of Moors in their white dresses. He questioned his guide as to what was going on, and the guide confessed that it was the slave market, a place which as a rule Europeans were not allowed to see. It was a very pitiable sight. A slave was led round by the auctioneer, his teeth wore looked at, and after a certain amount of competition, he was knocked down for £15. A woman and child were the last to be sold. They were born in slavery, and the owner had just died. The consequence was that all the personal effects of the deceased had to be sold. When they were offered for sale, he hoped that they would be sold together, but unfortunately, they were not. The child, four or five years of age, was sold to be taken in one direction, and the woman in another. He earnestly appealed to the Secretary of State to do all that he possibly could, without overstepping the limit which made combination with the other Powers necessary, to have the public sale of slaves done away with in Morocco.
MR. WALTER LONGdirected attention to some aspects of Irish affairs, and, in the first place, criticised the composition of the Railway Commission in that no representation had been given upon it to those who controlled railways in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had recently seated in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, that apparently it was not the intention or desire of the Opposition to indict the Irish Government. He said at once in answer to that that in his judgment
1438
it would be folly for anybody in a Parliament composed as this was not to accept the fact that there was a change of Government, and that obviously, therefore, there must be a change of policy; and to attack the Government because they adopted a policy which in many degrees differed from that of the late Government would be a waste of time. It was the duty, however, of those who belonged to the Party opposed to the right hon. Gentleman not only to watch his procedure, and to criticise it, if necessary, but to maintain the principles in which they believed. The right hon. Gentleman gave a few days ago an account of his stewardship and took considerable exception to the action of his hon. friends on the Opposition benches for criticising some of the work he had done. He was bound to say there was great justification for the criticism they had passed upon many things. He would only mention three— the appointment of three Commissions. He would say nothing about the Trinity College, Dublin, Commission, except to express the hope that the latest suggestions made in regard to this subject would receive not only the attention of the Royal Commission, but also the sympathetic consideration of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The solution of that question would be found in the lines recently suggested. In regard to the other two Commissions, he was bound to say there was good reason for dissatisfaction among his hon. friends and those they represented in Ireland. In regard to the Railway Commission there had been no representation given at all to those who controlled and worked the railways in Ireland; the whole case of the railway interest in Ireland had been left in the hands of people who were concerned with the administration of English railways. He had had some experience of the management of English railways, and when in Ireland he had the opportunity of investigating the position of Irish railways. He believed there was such fundamental differences between the two systems and the conditions which surrounded them that if the Government were really desirous of doing justice to them, and if they wanted to command—as they

1439
ought to do—the confidence and sympathy of the people who worked those railways, they ought in common justice to give them representation of their own in order that they might have the opportunity to exercise some control over the conduct of the inquiry and of saying what the result of that inquiry was to be. He felt they had a great grievance in the fact that they had no representation. In regard to the Land Commissioners, there was justly a strong feeling amongst many sections of the community. They had never had from the right hon. Gentleman any justification for his dismissal of several Land Commissioners whose performance of their duties had been creditable, against whom no faults had been alleged, who had done their work satisfactorily, and who were summarily disposed of and their places taken by men whose credentials were no better than those of their predecessors, and who had not the same experience, having only a limited knowledge of the work they had to do. He regretted the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary so soon after his acceptance of office to make this change not because he regretted the appointment of new Assistant Commissioners, but because a great injustice was done to the outgoing Commissioners—men who had no reason to expect that they were going to be dealt with in this way. Action of that kind must produce a feeling of want of confidence and discontent which was not to the interest of the public service. His hon. and gallant friend had also taken exception to the action of the Irish Government in regard to the eviction of Mr. Ward at Loughrea, and the right hon. Gentleman in his reply had appealed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say whether that interference should not have taken place and that bloodshed and trouble should have followed. There was nothing further from his right hon. and gallant friend's desire than that there should be any such consequence as bloodshed and trouble.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BEYCE,): I do not recollect having used those words, but the argument was that the alternative to the course that was taken
1440
would have been that, and I asked him whether he would have been prepared to accept that.
MR. LONGsaid he was only quoting from memory. Taking it that way, the result must obviously have been the carrying out of the eviction by force if there had not been this intervention. The officer who made the intervention acted under the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. What were the circumstances? A man was in occupation of a dwelling and was defying the law and refused to give up the premises to those who had the right to demand that they should be given up. The right hon. Gentleman justified his interference on the ground that by so doing he had brought about a peaceable termination of an affair which otherwise might have ended in bloodshed. As to how it would have ended they did not know. Many of these evictions in times past had led to terrible scenes. In this case what was going on? The man who occupied and declined to give up the house in question was at the same time taking part in measures which had for their object the inducing of some other people to give up their holdings for totally different reasons. He could sympathise with the Irish Government in their desire to avoid those terrible consequences which had more than once ensued from measures which were necessary for the enforcement of the law in Ireland, and it was not to this particular instance that public attention needed to be drawn. It was the results which followed an operation of this kind. He took the story as given by the right hon. Gentleman. He was quite sure it was correct. The story was that this intervention was carried out in a friendly way by an officer of the Irish Government; the man Ward was told that if he did not give up the force of the law would be used and he therefore surrendered That being so, Mr. Ward was entirely overcome by the law which took the form rather of friendly counsel than of vigorous action. What they would want to know later would be what was the effect of this particular action, not merely upon Mr. Ward, but upon the people of the whole district. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it had

1441
been satisfactory, that the condition of the district was day by day improving; that the force of police required to maintain order was gradually being reduced, and under these circumstances so far as this particular instance in Loughrea was concerned there was no cause for anxiety. But there was cause for anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman had declared in the strongest terms that the Government meant to uphold the law. If it was true that Mr. Ward was one of those who brought influence to bear upon the occupiers of grazing farms in order to get them to give up their holdings so that the land might be made available for other purposes; if the land was obtained by improper means; if they allowed force of a moral kind to be exercised which ought not to be exercised, then they would be teaching a lesson in that district which would bring trouble. Although the Government would have dealt with a single incident they would have given encouragement to people who were only too readily inclined to take the lands within their reach and turn them to their own advantage. And the difficulties of the Government would consequently be far greater when they had a dozen cases to deal with than when they had a single case. Dealing vigorously with these cases not only settled the momentary difficulty but produced peace and quiet for some time. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was too much law and too little liberty in Ireland. He did not know what was meant by that. He had always believed that the law was the greatest protector of liberty. In the law was to be found the best form of liberty. If there had been too much law and too little liberty there were some who feared that the phrase might be interpreted to mean that there had been too much latitude given to those who enforced the law and not enough to those who desired to interfere with the liberty of others in an illegitimate manner. There was a considerable minority in Ireland who suffered bitterly when the belief obtained that the law of the land could be disregarded and the law of private association was shown to be stronger than the law of the land, and compulsion which interfered with their ordinary business could be brought
1442
to bear on private individuals. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that there were many in the west of Ireland who believed that there was an undueinterference with their ordinary business—the occupation and holding of farms and so forth. He would therefore urge upon him in the name of those on whose behalf he spoke the absolute necessity for exercising every possible vigilance in order to see that there was freedom, not only for one class, but for every class, so that people should not be led to surrender their holdings or their business because there was some improper feeling against them or some desire to get land for other purposes than those for which they were using it. There was another practice which he thought was most improper, but which he admitted it was exceedingly difficult to deal with. It had been brought to his knowledge that there had been in existence a practice of circulating seditious literature among soldiers quartered in Ireland. Those who circulated this literature were very difficult to find. No doubt it was some wretched lad, and there was a great deal to be said against proceeding against people of that kind, but it was desirable if possible to proceed against the people who were the real source of the mischief. But these lads who assisted in the distribution of this literature did it knowing they were committing an illegal act, and he thought every step should be taken by the Government to check the practice, which was very improper and was directed against the forces of the Crown. He did not think it was beyond the power of the Irish police to step in in regard to such action, and he had no doubt they would do so if they knew they would be supported in any proper action. This literature was distributed to the soldiers, many of whom were young men, and the object was to make them false to the terms of their enlistment, and to make them believe that they were in a degrading service. He hoped the Government would put down this disgraceful practice. He also wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the correspondence which had passed between the Irish Government and the Board of Intermediate Education with regard to the action of the latter

1443
body. A great deal of interest was taken in this question by people of all classes, not confined to those with whom he generally acted. The correspondence he believed had not been published at present, at all events he had not seen it, but he thought it was most desirable that it should be in the possession of the public, in order that those who were interested might know the facts. When he left Ireland there were in progress a great many schemes connected with harbour, pier and railway development. He believed that the very best thing that could be done for Ireland was to carry out these works of internal and coast improvement, and he earnestly hoped that whatever schemes the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind with regard to the future government of Ireland he would not let them interfere with the equally if not more important question of the development of the resources of the country. He regretted that the carrying out of these schemes should have been temporarily arrested. So long as the policy of the Government was the maintenance of the law and the development of the resources of Ireland, the Chief Secretary would find no hostile critics on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had exceptional opportunities which were not enjoyed by his predecessors,and he believed that these powers were given to him not so much in view of contentment prevailing in the present but in a confident hope and expectation for the future. It was not, however, for them to deal with these proposals until they came before the House in a practical form, and therefore it was not their desire to indict the Government or challenge their action. It was their duty to watch their policy and see what the results of that policy were. All they said was that if the right hon. Gentleman was going to do justice to Ireland it must be justice to all classes and not justice to one only.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that in view of the short time at their disposal he would curtail his remarks as much as possible, as others wished to speak. There had been absolutely no crime in Wexford
1444
of any sort or kind, since 1878 and the magistrates were invariably presented with white gloves at the Assizes, and under those circumstances it was perfectly ridiculous that it should be proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act. There was no necessity for it. It was an insult to the county, and he asked the Chief Secretary to repeal the Proclamation. With regard to the fishing industries, he blamed the system that existed under which these important industries were neglected rather than the Chief Secretaries who preceded the right hon. Gentleman. In 1902 he first drew attention to this matter, and the then Chief Secretary said he would make inquiries. In 1903 he was told that those inquiries were proceeding, in 1904 that they were approaching a satisfactory conclusion, and now in 1906 the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said no inquiries had been made. Upon the last occasion, about eighteen months ago, when he brought this matter forward the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the Chief Secretary would bring him a perfected plan he would not find the Treasury wanting, yet nothing had been done. Except the assistance given in regard to the harbours at Arklow and Wicklow nothing had been done. He believed the fishing industry was the largest industry in Ireland; there were more men engaged in it than there were agricultural labourers in the country. The Government had given a large sum for the agricultural labourers and he thought the time had come when they should do something for the fishermen. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would pay a visit to the eastern and southern coasts and see these fishermen and realised the possibilities of the fishing industry, he was sure he would be converted to their views. With regard to the fishing boats supplied to the congested districts, he saw no reason why they should not be built in Ireland. He believed they could be built as cheaply there as elsewhere, and he hoped in future that they would not be built on this side, of the Channel.
MR. FLYNNsaid he recognised the difficulties which the Land

1445
Commissioners had to contend with, and the great responsibility cast upon them, and he had no desire to criticise them, unduly but he wished to direct his remarks to two or three particular points. One was the lack of energy with which the Land Commissioners in Ireland tackled the all-important questions of grazing lands, the evicted tenants, and the labourers. He drew attention to two cases which had occurred during the last fortnight, in one of which 160 acres were sold to a man who already held a large tract of land, with the result that thirty or forty families were unable to secure land. In the second case a man already owning over 100 acres secured some further 300 acres. It seemed that to those who had much, much was to be given. He desired the Chief Secretary to urge the Estates Commissioners to use their powers of acquiring untenanted land for the purpose of restoring evicted tenants. It was futile to think of settling the Irish land question by the mere transfer of land from a certain number of landlords to a certain number of tenants if they did not above all things deal with the congestion in the west and other parts of Ireland. The plain and palpable intentions of Parliament three years ago were that the evicted tenants should be reinstated as far as possible and the grazing lands divided amongst the industrious population.
MR. GORDONasked for information as to what course the Government proposed to take in regard to the Bann drainage. Sir Alexander Binnie brought in a report some months ago which by the people in the district was regarded as a very practical way of dealing with the question. The cost was estimated at £75,000, and he thought if the Chief Secretary could see his way to give some practical relief the best form it could take would be to contribute a substantial sum towards the cost of carrying out Sir Alexander Binnie's scheme.
MR. POWERurged the Chief Secretary to give his attention to the question of the Irish fisheries.
1446
There was a large coast to protect and they had very little help from the Admiralty in the matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might certainly press upon the Admiralty the necessity of providing gunboats to assist the only two boats they now had for the protection of the coast. Referring to the duties of the Estate Commissioners with regard to tenancies, he regretted that the circular issued by that authority had not been more favourably received by the landlords. In many places the landlords looked upon the action of the Commissioners as an attempt to intimidate them. The Estates Commissioners had endeavoured to carry out a settlement with regard to tenancies, and he thought the landlords should be particularly glad to have the opportunity of handing the land over, especially when the price offered was far larger than they could ever have hoped to have got under the Act of 1903. The representative of the landlord said that he objected to the Inspector reporting to the Estates Commissioners in regard to these farms. The Inspector thought that he had no power to insist on inspection if the landlord objected. It would be a monstrous state of things if it were possible for such a landlord openly to defy the wish of Parliament, and he was perfectly sure that the Estates Commissioners, when the case was brought to their notice, would make it clear that this landlord could not trifle with the wish of Parliament. From an executive point of view, it was desirable that the Chief Secretary should make a statement on the subject. These people had lived in the hope that they would be restored to the farms and to the houses they themselves built, and it would have a disastrous effect on the peace and the condition of the locality if they were to be told now that they had no hope of being restored to the farms.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin make the characteristic speech which he had delivered. It was full of the cry for repressive measures. He was

1447
bound to make that speech, having regard to the place and the people he represented. He himself wished to enforce the demand made by his hon. friend the Member for Wexford. There was absolutely no use for the Crimes Act in Ireland. It was an Act passed many years ago for the purpose of dealing with an exceptional state of things which had ceased to exist. The right hon. Gentleman who was at present responsible for the Government of Ireland had established for himself the character of a philosopher. When the late Mr. Forster was asked to make permanent the Coercion Act of 1882, he absolutely refused to do so, stating that he would not be the man to hang up a sword of Damocles for anybody but himself to take down. Mr. Forster had confidence in himself, but none in his successors. The present Chief Secretary now found himself in possession of such a sword. He could hang it up or take it down at pleasure. He trusted that he could show the right hon. Gentleman some reason why he should take it down for the last time and throw it away. Writing on the subject of civil liberty, the philosopher Paley said—
"A law being found to produce no sensible good effects is a sufficient reason for repealing it, as adverse and injurious to the rights of free citizens, without demanding specific evidence of its bad effects. This maxim might be remembered with advantage in the revision of many of the laws of this country, and amongst people enamoured to excess and jealous of their liberty it seems a matter of surprise that this principle has been so imperfectly attended to."
He thought that principle might be attended to by the right hon. Gentleman at present. He had taken the trouble to make out a comparative statement of crime in Ireland, England and Scotland. If he were to quote the figures, though he did not intend to occupy the time of the House in doing so, he thought hon. Members would wonder at the amount of money spent on police in Ireland, where there was a comparatively small amount of crime, as compared with the amount of money spent on police in England and Scotland where there was an enormous and increasing amount of crime to be dealt with. A reduction of the police force in Ireland had been promised from time to time, but he doubted whether that was going on
1448
apace. He trusted that what he now said in regard to the Crimes Act would not be said in vain, and that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to have it repealed.
MR. BRYCEsaid he would not enter in detail into the points which had been raised. Some of the questions could only be answered by entering at considerable length into the way the law was administered. The hon. Member for Wexford had objected to the maintenance of the Peace Preservation Act and had denounced the proclamation of the County of Wexford. It reminded him of a parallel case when, thirty years ago, he visited Iceland and had difficulty in getting quarters in the capital town. The authorities said that, as the gaol had not an occupant, they would be only too happy to give him quarters there. The question of the Peace Preservation Act was engaging his attention, and during the course of the autumn he would consider the whole subject fully to see whether the proclamation of a certain number of counties could be withdrawn.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Will you repeal the Act?
MR. BRYCEsaid he would consider the whole subject. On the subject of the fisheries he regretted as much as the hon. Baronet that the industry of line fishing was diminishing. It was diminishing all over the United Kingdom, it was diminishing on the east coast of Scotland, on the Moray Firth, and on the Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire coast. This was largely owing to the growth of trawlers, and therefore the hon. Baronet must not suppose that the diminution was confined to the North of Ireland. He would do what he could to encourage the fishing industry, but why should not the hon. Member if he thought the subject had been inadequately dealt with by the Department tender evidence to the Committee who were sitting on that subject, and say what could be done for the promotion of fisheries in that part

1449
of the country. As to the provision of gunboats the Admiralty was very chary in giving gunboats for the protection of fisheries, and even the Secretary for Scotland found great difficulty in getting help from the Admiralty. They had two boats which were engaged in the work, and these he thought were sufficient. A trawler might escape now and again, but he did not think much harm was done. The hon. Member for North Cork had called attention to grazing lands and evicted tenants, and had brought up a case in which he did not think justice had been done. His complaint was that the Estates Commissioners were not sufficiently energetic in getting hold of un-tenanted land. He once travelled in company with the Estates Commissioners some years ago and they talked a great deal about the subject. He could assure the House that the Commissioners were exceedingly anxious to carry out the duties thrown upon them, and they were anxious to get hold of untenanted land and divide it up for the benefit of the people. They were by no means friends of the largo grazing ranches. Now and then it was not possible for them to avoid leaving a certain amount of untenanted land in the hands of some person in the neighbourhood, but speaking generally the Estates Commissioners were not selling land to large holders. Sometimes they had to make a bargain to get other advantages, but they were doing what they could to break up grazing farms and put them into the hands of men who would use for them for agricultural purposes. The hon. Member had referred to congestion, other than in the congested districts. There were parts of Ireland where that evil existed. The hon. Member knew that the attention of the Government had been called to this point. They had lately appointed a Commission to deal with the question, and it was part of the reference to that Commission to inquire whether there were not outside the areas now scheduled as congested other districts practically in the same position which "ought to have special treatment accorded to them, and to ascertain how much untenanted land there was which could be made
1450
available in whatever part of Ireland for the relief of congestion. He hoped the hon. Member would see that the importance of the subject was fully realised by the Irish Government who were endeavouring to do all they could in the matter. He assured the hon. Member for East Waterford that the Government were doing all they could to meet the cases of the evicted tenants. The six new inspectors were busily investigating cases and advising the Estates Commissioners as to lands available where they could be placed. The inspectors could not trespass on lands where the owner did not desire their presence, but the Estates Commissioners would have their attention directed to such cases and would exercise their jurisdiction when the lands came to be sold to impose such conditions in regard to untenanted land as would be salutary and beneficial for the neighbourhood and the small people who desired to acquire land. He had no complaint to make against the tone and spirit of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for South Dublin. His speech was in no way acrimonious, and it did not make any unfair charges against the Irish Government. He quite understood the right hon. Gentleman's wish that schemes to which he was attached should, from time to time, be debated in this House, and that the attention of the House should be called to anything that might be described as a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. He did not think, however that the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the Government had departed from the admirable general maxims that he laid down. The right hon. Gentleman spoke first of the appointments to the different Commissions by the Government, and said, what he (Mr. Bryce) was very glad to hear, that if the Royal Commission sitting at Trinity College, Dublin, was able to arrive at any solution that would satisfy Irish public opinion on the long-vexed University question, which had been a trouble to British Parliaments beyond the memory of anyone now sitting in the House, he and he believed the Opposition would support it.
MR. WALTER LONG: No, I did not say anything in regard to the Opposition. The only matter I was referring to was the latest suggestion that had been made, and which I hoped would receive the attention of the Commission and the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I have only real of the suggestion within the last forty-eight hours, but I think it is a solution which everyone will rejoice in.
MR. BRYCE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the Leader of the Opposition and himself desiring to see a solution of this question. He certainly said it was outside of Party politics and in that I, of course, agree with him. Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Commission on Irish railways. It had been said that there was a feeling among a certain number of people connected with the rail ways that the Commission was a menace to them. He could not understand how that feeling arose. The only result of the Commission would be, he was quite sure, beneficial to Ireland. He trusted that it would be found possible to work the Irish railways more economically and effectively than they were at present worked. That would lead to greater efficiency and would result in better dividends to the shareholders. He hoped, therefore, that the Commission would be able to suggest more economical methods of working based on English experience and the development of the branch line system. He had never heard any suggestion from Irish railway companies that they should have any representatives on the Commission. The Commission consisted of gentlemen who had held high places in the railway world. The Chairman, Sir Charles Scotter, was a member of the Commission which sat upon Irish railways twenty years ago and knew the Irish railway system thoroughly. He did not think that in any way the interests of the Irish railways could be threatened or imperilled by the Commission which had been appointed. The Commission could do nothing but good, and he hoped that the groundless apprehensions to which expression had been given would be dismissed from the
1452
minds of those who held them. As regards the Land Commission, also referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he would not go again into the justification he made three months ago. The accounts he had received from those who had to deal with the new Assistant Commissioners, and those whom they served, were to the effect that they were better men and were doing their work more efficiently than their predecessors. He thought, therefore, that the substitution of those five new men had been amply justified in the result, and he repeated what he had said on a previous occasion, tint politics had nothing whatever to do with the appointments, because the authorities, had not the slightest knowledge of the political opinions of any one of the Assistant Commissioners. Referring to the Loughrea dispute the right hon. Member for South Dublin had confined his criticism to the suggestion that if any intervention on the part of the Government in that dispute were to encourage in any way intimidation or disorder or any interference with private life that would be unfortunate. He (Mr. Bryce) quite agreed, but he had no reason to believe that it would have tint effect. Loughrea was a part of Ireland where disorder might be said to be more or less endemic. He could not say that even now the condition of the place was altogether satisfactory, but he believed the condition would be a great deal worse but for the last intervention. A very serious conflict, which would have resulted no doubt in serious bloodshed, was only averted by the action of the Under-secretary. It was most fortunate that he had such an Undersecretary. The Irish Government had in no way departed from the principle they laid down from the first, viz., that they had been endeavouring to give to every private person all the protection possible, whether by way of police protection or by prosecution of offenders where the offence was one which could be made the subject of prosecution. Where there had been any attempts at intimidation, action had been taken. The Attorney-General for Ireland authorised him to say that no case in which there was sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution

1453
had been brought to his notice without his ordering a prosecution. The Irish Government believed that it was its first duty to enforce the law whenever it could. There were, however, means of bringing intimidatory force to bear upon individuals with which the law could not deal. Wherever there was a prospect of enforcing the law there the Government would not neglect their duty. The right hon. Member for South Dublin referred to the distribution of seditious literature among soldiers in Ireland. He (Mr. Bryce) had heard of no such distribution. There had been a few instances in which attempts had been made to distribute anti-recruiting leaflets, but they were very few and it had been found impossible to discover the perpetrators. The particular case the right hon. Gentleman mentioned must have been exaggerated or based upon some idle report, because the police were very careful to give information from time to time on all offences that came to their knowledge, and they had not reported any such case. The right hon. Gentleman had asked that the correspondence between the Irish Government and the Intermediate Education Board should be published. No one desired that that correspondence should be published more than he (Mr. Bryce) did. He had hoped to have it published before now, as he said a few days ago. The position was this, that the members of the Inter mediate Board did not desire their part of the correspondence to be published, and the Irish Government had there fore refrained from publishing their part because they felt it would not be fair to do so if the Board did not publish their replies. If the right hon. Gentle man represented the Board—
MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly not, I have only raised the question in the interests of those who want to have the fullest information hi regard to it.
MR. BRYCEsaid his own personal wish would be to publish the correspondence to-morrow. He had it almost all in
1454
print and it could be published at a day's notice. He agreed with what the right hon. Member for South Dublin had said as to the importance of schemes for the development of harbours and railways in Ireland, but the right hon. Member of course knew that money was necessary for these purposes. It was, moreover, very difficult to decide which of a number of schemes for improvements throughout the country should be selected, and the greatest care was needed in the administration of the money the Irish Government had at its disposal. One of the projects for which there was a great demand was the drainage of the River Bann. There was nothing nearer his heart than to secure the carrying out of that project. The Irish Government were going to communicate with the comity council to see what help they could give, and to discover whether any means could be found by which the water power of the Bann could be utilised for industrial purposes which would repay some of the cost of the project. He would do his best to bring about a solution far too long delayed. The House would be glad to know that in Ireland generally there was freedom from crime and disorder. The reports of Judges who had attended the assizes where most hopeful. The aims that the right hon. Gentleman had stated in his concluding sentences to be his were those of the Irish Government; and he hoped that even if the methods by which the Government proposed to attain the ends that they had in view were different from those favoured by the right hon. Gentleman he would recognise that it was the wish of the Government to secure equal justice to all classes in Ireland, to render Ireland powerful and prosperous, and to see that respect for the law went hand in hand with that largo measure of liberty and self-government which they hoped the country would enjoy.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONcomplained that there had been only one day for Scottish Estimates. There was one important point which he wished to bring before the notice of the Secretary for Scotland and that was the administration of the Central Board which

1455
controlled Scottish affairs. A great deal was needed to strengthen the Central Board, and he asked the Secretary for Scotland if he would institute an inquiry into the working of the Board. He was confident that a good many of the smaller Boards could be made more effective by amalgamation. The right hon. Gentleman himself had proposed to absorb the Congested District Board in a land commission. The Board of Agriculture in Scotland was an admirable Department, but there were other Boards which might be amalgamated. For instance, the Prison Board and the Lunacy Board might be amalgamated. It would be as great an advantage to have the Board of Education moved to Edinburgh, as it would be to have the Board of Agriculture moved. The Local Government Board no doubt did admirable work, but it; was not properly equipped to carry out legislation. In his opinion one of the greatest benefits that the people of Scotland could have would be a strong departmental inquiry into the working of all these different Boards, into the possibility of having the representative element introduced, and into the advisability of amalgamating the Boards where possible.
*MR. MORTONsaid there was no doubt that these Boards were working most unsatisfactorily, and it was unfortunate that the Secretary for Scotland was not their master. Parliament could not get near these Boards. Mr. Gladstone said on many occasions between 1886 and 1892 that it was all very well to have good laws, but things could not be got to work right unless ! there was good administration also. They wanted in Scotland good administration. What he complained of was that there had been only two or three hours this session for the discussion of Scottish affairs. There were a number of social questions affecting Scotland which the present Government were pledged to attend to and which must be attended to. The Prime Minister had said that one of the great things needed was the colonisation of our own country. Many parts of Scotland wanted colonising.
1456
Millions of money were wasted each year in foreign countries which should have been saved for the benefit of Scotland, and to enable Scotsmen to live in their own country. The main roads wanted attending to and the steamboat service to be developed. New harbours were required. [Cries of "Divide," and laughter.] Hon. Members sneered at him for trying to do something for his constituents. He was not going to sit down, however, but was prepared, if necessary, to sit all night. To his repeated Questions as to the suppression of illegal trawling he had had no satisfactory Answer. Some of the cruisers that were engaged in this work were not doing it properly, and, therefore, somebody ought to go and see that they did it properly. He had asked more than once to be allowed to see what these cruisers were doing, but had been refused. That refusal was proof of his assertion that the work was not being properly done. As to education, he was afraid that the pupil teacher system was going to be done away with without the House being consulted. He hoped that the Prime Minister would next year treat Scotland at least as well as he treated Ireland in the matter of opportunity for discussion. At present there were millions of money voted without discussion. It was a scandal and a shame that that should occur in a civilised country of this sort, and there ought to be found time and means for the thorough discussion of the expenditure of money before it was voted.
THE SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Member must not go into this matter on the present occasion.
*MR. MORTON,continuing, said he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would show more backbone and be master of all the Boards that were ruining Scotland as similar Boards had ruined Ireland.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)remarked that no one knew better than

1457
the hon. Member who had just spoken that the Government regretted as fully and deeply as he did that more time could not be given to Scottish business. The volume of business of the House was increasing yearly, and the Government had not yet had time to carry out their purpose of lessening the labours of the House in matters of detail. It was not in order on that occasion to discuss legislation, but he might say that in the legislation they had promised the Government had given substantial evidence of their desire to deal with the present evils in Scotland. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had alluded to the question of the Boards. Personally, he would like to have more experience before he expressed any definite opinion as regards the work of these bodies. As a matter of fact, in the legislation introduced by the Government they were now attempting to deal with three of the existing Boards. There were four Boards that remained, and he was prepared to admit that it was quite possible that more economical and better government might ensue from some different arrangement with regard to their working. These were the Lunacy Commissioners, the Prison Commissioners, the Fishery Board, and the Local Government Board. He would greatly like to enter into the discussion of several of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutherland, but he dared not at that late hour. He would only throw out the remark that it seemed to him that while on the one hand there was no definite charge of inefficiency or extravagance that could be brought against the Boards—
MR. MORTON: I have made such a charge and I stick to it.
MR. SINCLAIR: On the other hand, he was prepared to admit that improvement might follow upon inquiry or legislation
1458
based upon such an inquiry. His humble opinion was that the difficulty did not lie with the Edinburgh Boards, 'but in the fact that Parliament could not under present arrangements afford to give sufficient time for the administration and control of Scottish business and those responsible for it. He was not sure that the elective principle with regard to these Boards would not weaken the control of Parliament itself. This was a large subject and he would not enter upon it that night. He hoped that some real advance would be made in the directions indicated.
MR. MURPHYrose to continue the debate.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Main Question put, and agreed to:— Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
Census of Production Bill,—Order for Committee read, and discharged:—Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
DOGS BILL.

  Consideration of Lords' Amendments.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsuggested that the House should hear from the Minister in charge an explanation of the purpose of the Lords' Amendments.
  MR. MORTONalso pressed for some explanation. He was, he said, very doubtful about the Bill himself. The Amendments ought to be explained.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYexplained that the Amendment was to leave out "sheep" and insert "cattle," the object being to entitle the owner to compensation for the worrying of both sheep and cattle by dogs.
  MR. HICKS BEACHinquired why it was that if both sheep and cattle were to be protected both words were not inserted in the clause.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYreplied that the word "cattle" covered both sheep and cattle.
  The Lords' Amendments were agreed to.

  COLONIAL MARRIAGES HILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, ETC., 1905–6.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Musical Copyright Bill, with Amendments.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  That they agree to the Amendment made by this House to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, and do not insist on one of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed and agree to the Amendment made by this House in lieu thereof, and do not insist on one other of their Amendments to which, this House has disagreed, and do not insist on another of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed, and propose an Amendment in lieu thereof to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  MUSICAL COPYRIGHT BILL.
  Lords' Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 340.]

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Lords' Amendment to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 341.]
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of July 13th last.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes before Twelve o'clock.