Commons Sitting of 4 August 1906

Preamble
The House met at Ten of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AXD WALES) HILL.
  Petitions against; From Aikton; Long Newton; Radlett; Silloth in Eskdale; and Wigton; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Two Petitions from Frittenden, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (ELECTION OF ALDERMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Manchester, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT 1889 (ORDINANCE).
  Copy presented, of University Court Ordinance No. XVIII. (Edinburgh, No. 7) (Alteration of Ordinance, No. 16, of the Commissioners (1889), Edinburgh, No. 1, Regulations for Degrees in Medicine) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 324.]
  FORESHORES.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 4th August, 1906, directing the application of moneys received by the Board of Trade in the year ended 31st March, 1906, in respect of the rights and interests of the Crown in the Foreshores of the United Kingdom [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Postmen's Wages.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if, for purposes of comparison, the postmaster of Belfast recently obtained statements of the wages paid to employees from the principal business houses in the city; and, if so, would the Postmaster-General explain why it was stated by the postmaster of Belfast, before the Select Committee of Inquiry on post office servants, that he was not aware such comparisons had been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The statement by the postmaster of Belfast before the Select Committee was perfectly correct. He was giving evidence about postmen only, and he had made no inquiries and obtained no information for the purpose of comparison with the wages of postmen.

  Qualifications of Telegraphists.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will direct that telegraphists (male) at Belfast who are about to be tested in the higher duties of their class, with the view of passing the efficiency bar, will be afforded beforehand proper facilities to enable them to become familiar with the details of such test duties, particularly with regard to counter work, and that before being required to take charge of the counter they will have some experience of counter work generally.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Postal Delivery of Circulars.
  MR. DU CROS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in order to prevent delay in the delivery of

  1795
  ordinary correspondence there is any rule limiting the number of circulars to be taken out with the regular deliveries; if so, what is the number for each walk.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is the practice to make special deliveries of circulars when the regular deliveries would be seriously delayed if they were taken out with the letters; but no definite number has been fixed, as the circumstances must necessarily vary.

  Imported Cement.
  MR. JOHN WARD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the number of tons of foreign cement imported into the United Kingdom in 1905, and the countries from which such cement came; also whether he can give the names of the firms in this country to whom the cement was consigned, the ports at which it was unloaded and stored, and the work upon which such cement was used; whether he is aware that the great bulk of such imported cement is retailed as British Portland cement; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to protect the public from fraud of this character.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A statement has been prepared and will be communicated to the hon. Member giving all the information available as to the quantity of cement imported from foreign countries into the United Kingdom at the various ports during 1905. The names of the ultimate consignees of the cement cannot be given as the law only requires the names of the importers or agents to be furnished in the "entries." Imported Portland cement bearing marks implying that the goods are of British manufacture would be required to have these marks duly qualified, so as to afford a definite indication of the country of origin, in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. As to retail sale, a false trade description would appear to be applied if foreign Portland cement were retailed as British, and it would be open to anyone aggrieved to take action under the Act referred to.

  Meeting of Intermediate Board, Ireland
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the refusal of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland to furnish to Parliament the minutes of their meetings, whether the meetings of the Board are and must be conducted in secret; if so, has the Board any explanation to give of the fact that, while the minutes of its meetings have been denied to Parliament, full information of the nature of its recent proceedings appears to have been communicated to one of the Dublin Unionist newspapers; and, if the proceedings of the Board are not necessarily secret, whether there is anything to prevent the Board from publishing its minutes and admitting representatives of the Press to its meetings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The meetings of the Intermediate Board are not open to the public, and as it is an administrative Board it is undesirable that they should be. The Intermediate Education Board inform me that they are not aware that a report of their proceedings has at any time been communicated to any newspaper. It would, therefore, appear that any information as to the Board's proceedings which may have been (as alleged) communicated to the public Press can only have been so communicated through a breach of confidence. If this has occurred there must have been a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the person who has been guilty of such conduct as is alleged in the Question. With regard to the publication of the minutes of the Board, I beg to refer the honourable Member to my reply to the Question of the honourable Member for West Kerry on the 31st ultimo, in which I stated that the Board declined to send their minutes, which had, as they said, been always regarded as private and confidential.

  Regulations for Secondary Schools.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education, whether, under paragraph 8 of the Regulations of the Board for Secondary Schools, a scholar may be placed in the course of one year for certain subjects and in the course of another year for other subjects, according to the child's capacity, or whether if a child be placed in or

  1797
  promoted to any special part of the course, he must follow that course in all subjects.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The usual practice is for a scholar to be placed in a certain year's course for all subjects; but where circumstances render it expedient, or better for the scholar, the method referred to in the first part of the Question may be followed.

  Assistant Clerks.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the number of assistant clerks (new class) employed in each Government department in the United Kingdom, and the number of promotions that have been made to the Second Division in these offices since assistant clerks (new class) were appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna): It would not be possible without much time and trouble to inform the lion. Member of the number of assistant clerks (new class) employed severally in each department, although no doubt a rough: approximation could be arrived at from; the Estimates. I am, however, able to state in continuation of information supplied in former years that the number of appointments made to the new class of assistant clerks since that grade was constituted is 2,146, and that the total number promoted to the second division up to 31st July, 1906, is 56.

  Inland Revenue—Inspection.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as there is an experienced staff of inspectors for the annual inspection of the outdoor branch of the Inland Revenue service, he will explain the object of the inspection undertaken annually by the Secretary of the Inland Revenue Board; whether that official has any experience of the outdoor work of the Department, and what is the annual cost of his services in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) There is no formal inspection by the Secretary. From time to time, not every year, ho visits selected places. These visits greatly conduce, in the opinion of the
  1798
  Board of Inland Revenue, to the efficiency of the Department. The cost is trifling.

  Legislative Council of the Punjab.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Committee appointed to consider the reorganisation of legislative councils in India will take into their consideration the case of the legislative council of the Punjab, to which the privileges of interpellation, or of discussing the Budget, or of any form of popular representation, have not yet been extended.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not yet in a position to answer this Question.

  Registration of Title, County Cork.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that doubts have been thrown on the qualifications and validity of appointment of the local registration of title for county Cork under The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891; will he say if fees are collected from applicants for registration of their titles and from transferees of charges on registered land in respect of transfers; are these fees collected in cash or by means of stamps, and to what account are they paid; under what authority, statutory or otherwise, are these fees collected, and by whom; and is their collection with the approval of the Irish Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the Answer given by the Attorney-General for Ireland to his Question on this subject on Thursday last. That Answer details the statutory authority under which fees are collected. The approval of the Government to their collection is not necessary.

  Tarbert Process Server.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu tenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Captain Robert Leslie, D.L., Tarbert, county Kerry, and his solicitor, Mr. Thomas Windle, compelled with threats of instant dismissal the process server of Tarbert to serve notices to quit on some

  1799
  town tenants of Captain Leslie, and that as a result the civil bill officer has left the country rather than serve any more such notices; and will he say if it is part of the duty of a civil bill officer to serve such notices for a landlord or his solicitor; and, if not, will any notice be taken of this conduct on the part of a magistrate and a solicitor.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that Michael Mangan, process and summons server, Tarbert, failed to appear at last Listowel quarter sessions, that he had neglected to serve several processes, and had been fined at the previous quarter sessions for neglect of duty. I am further informed that it is not the fact that Mangan was threatened by either Captain Leslie or Mr. Windle. I am advised that it is no part of the duty of a civil bill officer to serve notices to quit. In any event civil bill officers are under the control of the County Court Judge and not of the Executive Government.

  Case of War Office Clerks.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will state what steps have been taken to test the accuracy of the Official Minutes in the War Office Files Nos. 74705 and 74706, dated respectively 17th and 20th April 1899 and 17th March 1900; and whether the money involved, of which the three established Civil Service clerks concerned were deprived, as stated on 16th Juno 1904, can now be publicly inquired into.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The cases of these three clerks have been fully considered by my predecessors, and I am not prepared to re-open them.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Turbines for Torpedo Boat Destroyers.
  MR. ASHLEYI beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the torpedo boat destroyers included in this year's Estimates will be fitted with turbine machinery; and whether any provision will be made on those vessels for opening the turbine cases while at sea for the purpose of carrying out repairs
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,: All the destroyers included in this
  1800
  year's programme of new construction will be fitted with turbines. The details of the designs are still under consideration.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what provision of artisans and machinery will be made on foreign stations for carrying out serious repairs to turbines.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This question is occupying the attention of the Admiralty, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

  Rush Coastguard Stations—Right of Way
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Thursday the 26th July last, an inhabitant of Rush, county Dublin, was prevented by several men of the coastguard station at that place from going through a passway which, though it has a gate at either end, has been open to the public for thirty-two years without restriction, and is, in fact, the only direct way of getting to the beach from one side of the town of Rush; whether he is aware that Mr. Walsh, in the effort to prevent him from going through the passway mentioned, was violently assaulted and dragged along the ground for a considerable distance, with the result that he has been obliged to go under the care of a local medical doctor; will he say why this attempt was made, after thirty-two years, to shut out the public from access to the beach at Rush through the passage mentioned; and what action the Government propose to take in the matter.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am making inquiries in regard to this incident, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  The Lance.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is intended to permit lancer regiments to resume the lance as a complement to their present service equipment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,: The instructions laid down in Army Order 39 of March 1903 with regard to the use of the lance are still in force but they are under consideration.

  Church of England in Natal.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the revenues of the Church of England in Natal have been locked up for years, unable to be used by the curators because there is no Bishop of Natal; and whether, in view of the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate a bishop, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES {Mr. CHURCHILL,): It is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

  Tilonke's Case.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has had any information from the Natal Government stating why Tilonke is being tried by court-martial, although he was not taken in the field; why his counsel has been refused an adequate time to prepare for his defence; why no representatives of the public are allowed to be present at the trial; and whether His Majesty's Government has made representations to the Natal Government pointing out that such trials are not in accordance with the promises made to this House.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I regret to say the Secretary of State has not received any information from the Natal Government on the subject.

  Germany and Abyssinia.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the commercial Treaty recently concluded between Germany and Abyssinia, exempts German subjects in Abyssinia from the jurisdiction of native Abyssinian Courts and places them under German Consular jurisdiction; whether English subjects are subject to the jurisdiction of the Abyssinian Courts; and, if so, whether ho proposes to take any steps to obtain for English subjects the same privilege which German subjects now enjoy.
  THE SECEETAEY OF STATE FOR FOEEIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. No arrangements have been made for exempting the subjects of any foreign Power from the jurisdiction of these Courts.

  Income Tax on Foreign Trades.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a decision of the House of Lords to the effect that companies whoso office is in the United Kingdom, and whose property is situated in foreign countries or in other parts of the British Empire, are liable to pay Income Tax in this country as well as where their property is situated; whether he has considered the probable loss of business to this country which this decision may entail; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,: The decision in question laid down no new principle, and was in accordance with the current of authority for the last thirty years. The Question which arose, and which was anwered in the affirmative, was, whether, upon the facts stated, the company was "resident" within the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts. I see no reason to think that this judgment, which involved no alteration in the existing law and practice, will produce injurious effects; and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

  Imports of Cement.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Boards of Trade whether he can give the number of tons of foreign cement imported into the United Kingdom in 1905, and the countries from which such cement came; also whether he can give the names of the firms in this country to whom the cement was consigned, the ports at which it was unloaded and stored, and the work upon which such cement was used; whether he is aware that the great bulk of such imported cement is retailed as British Portland cement; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to protect the public from fraud of this character.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: A statement has been prepared and will be communicated to the hon. Member giving all the information available as to the quantity of cement imported from foreign countries into the United Kingdom at the various ports during 1905. The names of the ultimate consignees of the cement cannot be given as the law only requires the names of the importers or agents to be furnished in the "entries." Imported Portland cement bearing marks implying that the goods are of British manufacture would be required to have these marks duly qualified, so as to afford a definite indication of the country of origin, in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. As to retail sale, a false trade description would appear to be applied if foreign Portland cement were retailed as British, and it would be open to anyone aggrieved to take action under the Act referred to.

  London Water Supply.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a statement of Sir Alexander Binnie that the River Thames and Lea, from which the drinking water of London is drawn, receive above the waterworks intakes the more or less clarified sewage of 1,000,000 persons in the case of the Thames and about 250,000 in the case of the Lea, and that the late Sir George Buchanan, principal medical officer of the Local Government Board, stated that the drinking of such contaminated water ultimately results in death and disease to the consumers; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to secure a purer water supply for London.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,: I have seen the statement made by Sir Alexander Binnie. I am informed that the whole question of the adequacy of the works of the Water Board and existing sources to deal with the present and future population of the water area is now under the consideration of a Committee of that Board.

  Kinder Reservoir, Derbyshire.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government
  1804
  Board whether he has received any reply from the Stockport Corporation with reference to the stoppage of work at the Kinder Reservoir, Derbyshire; and, if so, whether he can state the terms of the same.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received a reply from which it appears that the work at the reservoir has not been stopped altogether, and that portions of it are being proceeded with at the present time, but that owing to difficulties with regard to the foundation of the dam, part of the work has been suspended. It further appears that the largest number of persons at any time employed on the work was 321 in August, 1905. The number at present employed is twenty-five. It became necessary for a large number of the men to find other employment, but, so far as can be ascertained, at present only one man of those formerly employed is without work. Almost all the married men found employment on another work in the neighbourhood which is being executed for the corporation, others have gone to the Derwent Valley Water Works, and others to Garston, where a new dock is being made. It is stated that there was at one time a little distress, but that this was relieved out of funds at the disposal of the Work men's Institute which is assisted by the corporation. So far as can be ascertained there is no distress now.

  STREET BETTING BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, to be printed. [Bill 343.]
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Road the third time, and passed.

ADJOURNMENT (AUTUMN SITTING).
Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House at its rising to-day do adjourn until Tuesday, October 23rd next, and that for the remainder of the session Government business have precedence at every sitting, and at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without question put."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
MR. MURPHYsaid he desired to raise several questions dealing with educational matters in Ireland.

1805
He complained firstly of the action taken by Dr. Starkie, head of the Irish Education Board, in the course of public speeches, in attacking the clerical managers of the elementary schools. As far as he himself and those for whom he spoke were concerned they had no doubt whatever that Dr. Starkie might be a very clever and highly educated gentleman; they had nothing to say against him personally, but they did complain of the way he administered educational affairs in Ireland. He antagonised himself and put himself in opposition to the best educated and most powerful force in Ireland, viz., the Catholic school managers. What would be thought of the official head of the Education Department in England if that official went round making speeches attacking the clerical managers of elementary schools? He would not be allowed to do it. He thought Dr. Starkie should be restrained; he should be put into another sphere for the exercise of his great ability and power of administration. It was not the cleverest men who were always the best, and certainly when anyone in Ireland or elsewhere set himself in opposition to great public opinion as represented by the Catholic school managers, he had very little chance of dealing with matters in a satisfactory manner. He and other Members had argued the question in reference to the need of reform and improvement in the educational affairs of Ireland, and lie believed he was right when he said that the present Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General were in agreement that things were unsatisfactory and in need of reform. With such affinity of feeling one might expect that some thing would be done, but they had been told by the Prime Minister that there was little hope of dealing with the question in the Autumn sitting. There were some 14,000 teachers affected by the present position of things in Ireland. It was impossible to have a prosperous country if its primary education was neglected and left in the present ruinous condition of such education in Ireland. He would suggest that the Attorney-General might ask the Chief Secretary to direct his attention to this question during the coming recess. He (Mr.
1806
Murphy) knew all about the conditions under which boys had to attend the elementary schools and of the little opportunity given them to make head way. A little expenditure upon these schools would make their condition more suitable for educational purposes and would give the poor children, who had to attend them clean and well furnished rooms. He hoped also some provision might be made for a new supply of books. Another matter he wished to bring before the notice of the House was that of the civil rights of teachers. He was informed that there was scarcely a county in England where the teachers were not allowed to enter into public life. In Ireland, however, every restriction was placed upon the teacher, and the result was that they were practically slaves at the mercy of the Public Department. Under such conditions they could not educate the children to become self reliant and self-respecting men. He hoped reforms would be immediately secured in this direction. Also, he hoped that the question of the salaries and pensions of teachers would be considered. It was because he took a deep interest in primary education that he had taken the present opportunity of referring to these matters, and he hoped the Attorney-General, who had always shown the greatest courtesy, would make it his business to represent to the Chief Secretary and the Department that there was a very strong feeling in Ireland with regard to primary education, and that such a state of affairs as at present existed could not be tolerated much longer.
MR. SLOANalso called attention to grievances in regard to Irish education, and especially to the case of a National school teacher who was dismissed without just cause by the school manager and was only able to secure a reversal of the decision by reason of the fact that the Board in Ireland, by the referees, were able to hold an inquiry into the facts. He complained further that the Intermediate Board and the National Commissioners were not duly responsible to this House, and that there was often undue delay in the payment of teachers' salaries. The Irish Administration at the present

1807
time was a fraud and a wanton. There were forty-one Boards in Ireland spending money over which this Parliament had no control. [An HON. MEMBER: Try Home Rule.] There were millions of money expended of which Parliament, although it had to vote the cash, had no control of the spending. That was a. state of affairs which if not promptly remedied by the present Government would have to be dealt with by another Government which would have to be substituted for the present one.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHEERY,apologised for the absence of the Chief Secretary, and hoped that, considering the right hon. Gentleman's laborious week, the House would excuse him. Hon. Members from Ireland would remember in an especial degree the amount of trouble and anxiety the light hon. Gentleman had gone through in connection with the Labourers Bill, which in a few minutes would receive the royal assent. Everybody would agree that the Government had done an act which would certainly conduce to the increased prosperity of a great mass of the Irish people in securing that the measure should be passed into law before the adjournment for the summer recess. Everyone concerned in Irish administration would admit the extreme importance of the questions referred to by the hon. Member for East Kerry and the pressing call there was for legislating on them. But they could not do everything at once, and the Government would not have been expected during the course of the present session to deal with such a thorny question as Irish primary education while they were passing the Labourers Bill through the House. Primary education had been neglected in a shameful manner in the past. It called for action so soon as the House could possibly take it. He lamented that the funds which ought to have been devoted to primary education corresponding to the funds devoted in England to that purpose had been diverted and applied in other directions. That was one of the most regret table circumstances connected with the late administration of Ireland. They were face to face with a great financial
1808
difficulty. If the position of primary education was to be improved and the schools were to be properly equipped, the teachers properly paid and the pupils given proper education, it would need the expenditure of a large sum of money. [Cries of "the development grant."] That grant had already been assigned to so many subjects that he doubted whether any sum would be available from that grant for this particular purpose.
MR. SLOAN: Assign it to the original purpose for which it was intended.
MR. CHERRYsaid he could not make a complete change at once. The Government would by some way or another secure sufficient funds for primary education. Every member of the Government regarded the matter as being of as much importance in Ireland as in Eng land, and it must be dealt with. As to Dr. Starkie, he did not propose to enter into details of that question. The hon. Member would himself recognise what a very great difficulty every permanent official was placed in owing to the transitional stage of Irish administration. Irish administration in the past had been in an unsatisfactory condition. The present Government hoped to make a change in that, and it was one of their most earnest hopes that in the course of next session or some future session the administration of Ireland would be brought into closer connection with the people of Ireland. He was glad to hear that the hon. Member for South Belfast welcomed those changes.
MR. SLOAN: What changes?
MR. CHERRY: In the administrative boards.
MR. SLOAN: Yes, I should welcome changes in the administrative boards, but it must not be assumed that I shall welcome the changes suggested by the Government.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: The leopard cannot change his spots.
MR. CHERRYhoped the hon. Member's speech would be remembered

1809
in the future, and add to the favour in which the proposals would be received by the House. He accepted it as an indication of the spirit in which the hon. Member would act, and hoped it would be adopted by other Members who sat for Ulster constituencies, although he could not say he had much confidence as to that. Mention had been made of the Intermediate Board, and complaints were made that it was not responsible to this House. Correspondence on that subject had been going on between the Board and the Government, and it would be seen when that correspondence was published that the Government had been asserting most strenously, and would continue to assert, that the Board was responsible to the House. Until the Intermediate Board and all the other Boards were made responsible to this House they would not have good government in Ireland. It was essential that the administration of any country should be under the control of the representative body.
MR. MACKAKNESSreferred to one or two aspects of the proposed grant of self-government to the Transvaal. On the general character of that grant of self-government he heartily congratulated Ministers. The new Constitution had the great merit of being based upon trust of the brave people who fought against us instead of the distrust which marked the Constitution proposed by the late Government, and he was convinced that no measure which was not based upon trust would ever succeed. He passed over the objection to the second Chamber, which was only provisional and temporary, but the withholding of any grant of responsible government to the Orange River Colony was more serious. Many Members on the Ministerial side were highly pleased with the attitude of the Government on the Chinese labour question, and welcomed the declaration that they would not tolerate when self-government was introduced any kind of labour which was accompanied by servile conditions. It was welcome because it showed the Government had resumed that attitude towards freedom of all labour which was abandoned by the late
1810
Government. It was also satisfactory as showing that the Government would encourage white labour in the mines and throw open to responsible reputable persons the power to recruit our own black subjects to take part in the working of the mines. But he wished to point out that under the proposed policy in the Transvaal the existing state of things in relation to the employment of Chinese labour in the mines would continue for some years unless stringent measures were taken. The record of murders and outrages committed by the coolies was appalling, and by the herding together of 50,000 Chinese of the lowest class without women a horrible moral cancer had been introduced into our new colony, and the population and settlers in the Transvaal were becoming habituated to practices that had always been held in deepest detestation by our race. He earnestly pressed upon the Government that instead of waiting, they should make every effort to hasten the repatriation of the Chinese, and, as far as it was possible, to obtain withdrawal of licences. Instead of allowing 5,000 more Chinese to come in and adding to the gravity of the situation, they should extend the admirable policy which, they had begun, and persuade certain mine-owners to withdraw the licences and begin at once a gradual system of repatriation of this class who could not be allowed to remain in South Africa without contaminating the public life and purity of the Colony. He held that the whole policy of the war in the Transvaal was a gross wrong to the people of the Transvaal, but it was still more wrong to introduce into that Colony this terrible moral cancer. He therefore appealed to the Prime Minister to press on the policy of repatriation.
MR. FIENNESsaid he had had no intention of speaking on this or any other question to-day, but having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member and because recently he had felt compelled to vote against his Party he wished to say a few words on this question. He had formed his opinion on the Chinese question from letters received from South Africa, from men who were in his Yeomanry regiment and who were now working in the mines

1811
men who though they disliked the principle of Chinese labour said the only way in which work could be provided for the many white men starving in the streets at that time was to have more Chinese labour. There always was a great scarcity of natives labour in the mines even before the war. There were now 50,000 Chinese on the Rand. Those 50,000 were finding work for 6,000 white men, and unless a substitute was found for those 50,000 Chinese the position of the 6,000 white men would be jeopardised. He would be only too glad to see 50,000 white men take their place; he would be only too glad to see the experiment of Mr. Creswell carried to successful issue, but at the same time if that could not be done substitutes for these 50,000 Chinese must be found. Until they could find these substitutes they would be running the risk of throwing out of work 6,000 white miners, which would mean a loss of four seats. Where, then, would be our British supremacy? He would like to know the opinion of the Ridgeway Committee on the Chinese labour question.
MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that there was no allusion to Chinese labour in the Report of the Committee.
MR. FIENNESunderstood that, but there were such things as lobby rumours, and although he had no ground for his suggestion he would be glad to hear what any of the members of that Committee had to sayupon the labour question. So long as the Boers continued through their leaders to make violent speeches and to sow sedition as they had done, it was dangerous to give them a con stitution. It it were true that the Boers before the war wished to drive us into the sea—he did not think it was true, but at all events it was one of the pretences on which we went to war— then ten thousand times more had the Boers got a reason now for wishing to drive us out of South Africa. He hoped and trusted with all his heart that we might be able to unite with the Boer nation, who proved so gallant a foe, and he believed there were some who wished to be loyal to the British Crown, and who looked forward to the time when
1812
they would be part of the great Empire which, he thought, they on the Ministerial side had as much reason to be proud of as hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.
*MR. REESsaid his hon. friend the Member for Barnsley, who was unable to be present to-day, on Thursday last called attention to the failure of the Chinese Government to carry out the Mackay Treaty, to the necessity for further development of China by British con cessions, and to the administration of the customs. To the last mentioned matter he himself called attention on his own behalf, and on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, who was unavoidably absent. The Secretary of State's answer to a question he put yesterday disposed for the present of this matter, but he should be grateful if he could give any reply in other respects to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley, as it was regarded by his hon. friends and himself, and by all interested in the China trade, of paramount importance that the customs should remain as before under European control and supervision. An imperial decree to this effect not only containing the conventional and meaningless ending, "tremblingly obey," but also the intention that it should be obeyed, would appear to be the necessary cure for the present situation. He should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would give the House any information regarding the so-called Baghdad Railway project, a name which concealed rather than illustrated the immense importance of the scheme, which the representative of the Foreign Office in another place justly described as one of the greatest questions of our time, of similar character, and of equal moment to, the Suez Canal. He had endeavoured to show that His Majesty's Government formally consented in December, 1905, to allow the Turks to include military expenditure in the Macedonian Budget on the condition that the deficit, if any, should be supplied by drafts of the Ministry of Finance on the existing customs duties; that there was an annual deficit of £600,000 caused by military expenditure, which was being met from existing customs;

1813
and that it was as clear as daylight that if they consented to the extra 3 per cent, customs duty they would liberate more than a sufficient sum to pay the interest on capital, more than sufficient to carry the railway through the Taurus range, into the Mesopotamian plain, whence the descent to the Persian Gulf was easy and inexpensive. We were absolutely bound to participate in the whole scheme under some inter national arrangement and to have political control of the Gulf section, under pain of losing our commercial and political position in Turkey, Persia, and the Gulf, of having the flank turned of our Indian North-West frontier, and of seeing our commanding position in the Middle East seriously compromised, if not destroyed. He had endeavoured to show, among other things, that no considerations affecting Macedonia, the possession of another independent Power, for which we were not responsible, and which it was doubtful if we could benefit, could justify our consenting to the increase of 3 per cent., except upon the clearest and most satisfactory guarantees for our participation in the proposed new avenue of approach to the Persian and Arabian Gulfs and the Indian waters. If the right hon. Gentleman considered it unwise to en lighten the House as to the situation, he did not ask for any revelations, but it would be a comfort to know that he rightly appreciated, as he was sure he did, the true proportions of the Macedonian question, and the Baghdad Railway, the former of which related to the well-being of a population, sympathy with which should not blind us to the political and commercial necessities of the situation as regarded our own people. There was, indeed, little reason to believe that the increase, if sanctioned, would really benefit the people of Macedonia. Another subject he was concerned about was that of the British Indians in the Transvaal. The Government, he knew, had no power to coerce, and he was the last man in the House to wish to coerce Colonial ad ministrations. But certain speeches, epithets, and opinions, of individual Members, from which he profoundly differed, and which he deeply deplored, had found their way to South Africa where they occasioned very natural
1814
and very deep feelings of resentment. When, therefore, a Member, who regarded intervention from home in domestic Colonial affairs as generally unjustifiable and almost always disastrous, lifted up his voice in solemn protest against the treatment of our humane, civilised, and, in spite of intolerable provocation, always to the last degree helpful and friendly Indian fellow subjects, it was permissible to hope it would be taken in good part by the Colonial Government concerned, which indeed might reasonably reflect that its attitude in this behalf gave the only possible justification which could be found for the ungenerous criticisms and unfounded accusations of those who regarded our own flesh and blood in our own Colonies as oppressors of coloured and subject races.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDdesired to draw the attention of the House to a matter germane to a Question which he had had several times on the Paper. But first of all he would ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies a Question which arose out of his recent statement about the Transvaal Constitution. Would it be possible for the hon. Gentleman to give the House some information as to whether the Transvaal Parliament, when, it was elected, could immediately proceed to change certain matters provided for under its constitution. He referred, for instance, to the boundaries of constituencies. Would it be competent for the Transvaal Parliament within the next year or so, say, to appoint a re-redistribution commission, or to enfranchise women? How far were the establishment of a second chamber, the basis of the franchise, the exclusion of the natives, and the particular constituencies fixed by the Letters Patent that had been issued, and how far could they be the subject of Bills that might be immediately introduced into the new Parliament? With reference to the Question on the Paper to-day in his name he should like to say that he totally disagreed with his hon. friend who had just addressed the House in his view of Empire. He did not hold the idea of a little corner of the Empire doing what it liked without admitting that the rest of the Empire had any right to interfere or to advise.

1815
If we were to have an Empire we must have something that corresponded to a political unity, and if we were going to have that then the parts of the Empire that shared in the glory, pretension and honour of belonging to it must, as a quid pro quo, allow some central Imperial authority to take charge of the traditions, the honour, and the reputation of the whole. He defied any Imperialist to come to a conclusion as to Empire apart from that, and, having come to that conclusion, he defied anyone to supplement that conclusion with any such doctrine as had been stated this afternoon. The point he wished to raise was the present operation of martial law in Natal, and particularly in connection with the trial which was either proceeding or had finished this week. The chief Tilonkwe was invited by the Minister for Native Affairs to go to Pietermaritzburg a week ago last Monday. Tilonkwe went, and was immediately arrested, and was told that he was to be tried by court-martial. The news papers immediately published that the result of the trial was to be that Tilonkwe was to be either shot or hanged. After this was known, the Minister, or some responsible authority, allowed him to return to his tribe for the remainder of the week, when he was again summoned to Pietermaritzburg, and last Monday he was to be tried before the court-martial. That was in accordance with the statement made by the Under secretary in reply to a Question. He was not going to make any charge, but here was the case of a chief who was told to go to Pietermaritzburg, and when he obeyed the instruction was arrested and condemned to trial by court-martial. Then he was informed that he was going to be shot, and next that he could go back to his tribe for a few days, after which he was to return to Pietermaritzburg to undergo his trial. Surely a man would not obey a second summons under such circumstances. If the Minister for War ordered a court-martial to be held upon him (Mr. Macdonald), and he was told that he was going to be shot or hanged in the course of a week, he thought lie should try to get a passage to America or some other place where a
1816
writ could not be served upon him. Supposing Tilonkwe had refused to obey the second summons, his tribe would have been said to be in rebellion, and an armed force would have been sent to vindicate the honour and secure the safety of the Colony. Last Monday, however, Tilonkwe returned, and he thought this House ought to pass a special vote of thanks to him for having done so. Tilonkwe was an exceedingly trustful man for having appeared in spite of his having been told that he was to be shot or hanged. Then he was brought before the court-martial, and counsel was provided for him. The counsel informed the Court that it was absolutely impossible for him to go into the papers in the time. The accusations made against Tilonkwe included deeds beginning in January last, before martial law was proclaimed, up to the other day, when it was stated he had said or done something which might be construed into an intention to commit a wrong. Although Tilonkwe's counsel appealed for time in which to examine the papers, the Court told him to go on immediately with the case. Certain people were in the Court who knew Tilonkwe personally, and his conduct as a tribal chief, but they were at once ordered out of Court. He might refer to one in particular whose name would carry weight amongst impartial people, and that was Miss Colenso, who at great personal inconvenience went to Pietermaritzburg to see, so far as she could, that justice was done. She was informed that she had no business to be present. So far as he had been able to read the accounts, whilst everybody else were turned out of court the Crown witnesses were allowed to remain in court and listen to the proceedings. He did not think that was exactly the kind of proceedings that our Natal colonists should impose. He had asked several times what the Government were doing in the matter. They had heard a great deal during the previous sitting about breaches of pledges, but he would like to remind the House what the Under-Secretary said in reply to a question on May 2nd regarding courts-martial. He said—
"The Secretary of State has been informed that it is the intention of the Natal Government to try all natives other than those

1817
actually taken fighting with arms in their hands by the civil tribunals and not by courts-martial."
It was not alleged that Tilonkwe was ever in the field, or that he had anything at all to do with the rebellion. The only allegation was that he said something rude to the magistrates, and refused to pay his poll tax. Therefore trying Tilonkwe by court-martial was a breach of the pledges given by the Natal Government, and communicated by the Under-secretary to this House. It was quite impossible to carry the matter further, and all they could do was to utter their protest and express their heartfelt regret that they had not had a more satisfactory Answer to the Question addressed to His Majesty's Government on this matter. He was exceedingly sorry that they should start upon their holidays with such a thing as this pressing on their minds, and making them feel uncomfortable lest they had not fulfilled their responsibilities to the Empire in respect of what was going on in Natal at the present time.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)hoped his hon. friend would believe that the vigilance with which the Secretary of State was watching what took place in Natal would not be relaxed in the short period for which Parliament was about to adjourn. So far as their powers allowed them they would neglect no opportunity of bringing influence, by way of friendly counsel, to bear upon the Government of Natal. A very great number of communications passed almost daily between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Natal, and the Governor was constantly in council with the responsible Ministers and was constantly receiving from those Ministers minutes which were transmitted to this country. It was not possible for the Colonial Office with any advantage to say before hand what friendly advice they would or would not give to the Natal Government. Any statement of that kind on behalf of the Government here would tend to offend the susceptibilities of Colonial self-government, and remonstrances or advice and representations which might otherwise have been considered favourably might be met in a
1818
harsh and unyielding spirit, and hardly any practical result would be achieved. He hoped his hon. friend did not suggest that he had been guilty of any breach of faith to the House. He gave the House the full substance of the statement of the Natal Government with regard to their intention not to try any prisoners by court-martial except those found in the field with arms in their hands. But he did not think it could be called a pledge. A pledge was something given in return for value received. The fact that the rebellion had extended in scope no doubt influenced the Natal Government. As to the case of Tilonkwe, he had not heard what verdict had been given by the court-martial, but the fact that the chief had returned to take his trial showed that he was not apprehensive about the proceedings. In regard to the sentences that had been given by the court-martial, they seemed to him to be not at all disproportionate to the gravity of the offences proved against the persons convicted. He had not heard of any capital sentences that were likely to be carried into execution, and the fact that the Natal Government had brought active operations in the field to a conclusion would no doubt relieve the administration of justice from anything like the appearance of severity.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether there had been any confiscations of lands.
MR. CHURCHILLthought there was no possibility of anything of the kind being apprehended in the immediate future. He had been asked whether the Transvaal Government would have authority and power to change the new Constitution. He hesitated to speak on matters of constitutional law. He could only say, speaking without authority in such a matter, that, subject to the assent of the Crown, it was within the competence of any responsible Government to make any changes they might choose, within their own jurisdiction, either in the franchise or the distribution of seats or in the constitution of its Legislature. With regard to the question whether it would be possible for the new Parliament to alter the boundaries of seats, it

1819
was an integral part of the Government's proposals that arrangements should be made for automatic redistribution, and he had no ground to suppose that such a power would be twisted to any partisan purpose. He thought the House would agree that the Government had tried to deal with the Transvaal in a perfectly fair and above-board spirit. They had endeavoured to frame a Constitution that would give all the elements of the country a fair chance of having their views represented, and would afford no Party an unfair triumph. As to the question of a Constitution for the Orange River Colony, the conditions were not the same there as in the Transvaal. There was no register of voters in the Orange River Colony as there was in the Transvaal, Mid on that account there must be delay in granting a Constitution to the Orange River Colony. But he did not think it was an extravagant expectation to indulge in when he said that, if the Government continued to receive the same loyal and confident co-operation from South African parties in dealing with this delicate problem as in dealing with the case of the Transvaal, they hoped to see both these Parliaments called together in the course of next year. He wished to say a word in reply to the hon. Member for the Newbury Division of Berkshire. On several occasions he had been asked for information about cases of murder committed by Chinese coolies, and he regretted that he had given the House a wrong impression in replying to a Question, when he said that there had been twenty-seven murders among the white population. On investigation it was discovered that only two of these twenty-seven were murders of white people, and that the rest were committed by coolies upon their fellow-labourers. [An HON. MEMBER: Or blacks.] He had laid before the House on other occasions the plans which the Government had sanctioned for improving the security of the population other than Chinese against outrage. They believed and hoped that there would be a diminution of the violent crimes which had taken place lately in the short interval in which the administration of these matters would remain in their hands. Whether the extra police arrangements would be
1820
successful or not he could not attempt to forecast at this moment, but at any rate he thought hon. Gentlemen would agree that it would be much easier to administer and have effective control over the Chinese population, and effectively to reduce the number of that population, if they were supported, as they might very shortly be supported, by the opinion of a really representative Transvaal Parliament. As to the question of immorality, he thought it must be quite clear that the fact of so large a population living under conditions of enforced and unnatural celibacy must raise very disquieting reflections in the mind of anyone who contemplated the situation. The hon. Gentleman had rightly stated that the law in the Transvaal imposed severe punishments on whites and blacks under certain conditions, and he himself had not heard that that law had not been put in operation against the Chinese. It certainly should be put in operation, and if it should be found that it was at present neglected, instructions would be given to secure that the law should be made operative. But the hon. Gentleman proceeded to speak of an even worse aspect of the Chinese labour question. He made statements as to the unnatural vice which prevailed in the mines. The hon. Gentleman said it was rampant and obvious. All he could say was that he had never seen any document or paper— and a good many came before him—from South Africa which made reference to such a state of vice in the mines as that to which the hon. Member for Berkshire had called attention. It was only quite recently that the hon. Member, and. several persons from South Africa, had brought the matter to the knowledge of his noble friend Lord Elgin. He must remind the hon. Member that when he asked him to place the statements on record in writing he declined to avail himself of that opportunity, and consequently the Colonial Office was not able to give that attention to the charges which no doubt they deserved. Having regard to the later evidence as to the condition of things which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward, it was necessary that immediate inquiry should be made. He under stood, indeed, that his hon. friend had

1821
had several consultations with his noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that Lord Elgin has assured him that inquiries would be immediately addressed to Lord Selborne on the subject. He should suppose that, in these circumstances, the Colonial Office would be in possession of information on the subject before the House re-assembled. He had very frequently stated to the House the policy of the Government in regard to Chinese labour, and, in the absence of new facts, they were not inclined to change that policy. But, if such a state of things were disclosed as was indicated by the statements which had been brought before them by the hon. Gentleman, and if the charges he had made could be maintained, then he thought it would be clear that the general position of the Government in regard to Chinese labour, even during the transition period with which they were dealing, would have to be entirely revised. The hon. and gallant Member for the Banbury division of Oxfordshire spoke with knowledge on the subject of South Africa, for he had fought bravely in the field against the Boers. Therefore, his frank and straightforward opinions on South African matters deserved attention. The hon. and gallant Member made no attempt to repudiate or to answer the charges which were made by the hon. Member for Berkshire. All that he put forward was that the 50,000 Chinese were necessary if 6,000 white miners were to be kept in full employment, and that unless we kept them in full employment British supremacy would be imperilled. He would be sorry to place British supremacy on such a ground. He hoped that we should find other props and buttresses for British supremacy. He could only say that the matter would be carefully inquired into, and he hoped to be able to speak with some official knowledge on the question when Parliament re-assembled.
*MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he wished to pass one comment on the extraordinary proposition of the hon. Member for the Banbury division that we should be prepared to maintain abominable conditions of life for 50,000 Chinese in the hope of giving labour to 6,000 whites.
MR. FIENNESsaid he wished to thank the Under-Secretary for the Colonies for the extremely kindly way he had spoken of him. He had received numerous letters from South Africa, and he had taken every step to ascertain the facts in regard to the moral conditions of the Chinese who were working alongside whites in the mines. He had the letters and the facts before him, and, perhaps, in his hurry he had passed over some matters to which he should have liked to refer. He should have been glad to answer the hon. Member for Berkshire with regard to the moral conditions which were said to exist among the Chinese. He himself disbelieved the charges entirely.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid he had only to say on that head that what was going on was well known to the white miners on the Rand, who did not regard the presence of the Chinese as a means of giving labour to them. They had persistently opposed the presence of the Chinese. As to the lives of the Chinese, if his hon. friend did not believe the charges, he must know little of life in the East and of ordinary human nature under the conditions described. It had been notorious from the very first that these abominable conditions obtained, and it was a matter of some surprise to him that the Colonial Office should not long ere this have heard all about them. In regard to gold mines in other parts of the world it had been found possible to employ white labour. It was only in South Africa that it had been found necessary to sacrifice civilisation to the Stock Exchange. He desired, however, to turn from this subject to another which he feared was equally painful About a month ago when the Foreign Office Vote was before the House the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made an impressive appeal to the House on the subject of the executions which had taken place at Denshawi in Egypt. That appeal did not entirely silence the House, but it silenced the Ministerial side of the House, the general impression being that if they attempted to raise their voices in regard to the executions which had awakened horror throughout the country they might give an immeasurable impulse to a movement in Egypt which

1823
might end in bloodshed, or a large movement of troops. Now that there had been time to look into the situation he ventured to think that the House was no longer called upon to regard the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman then made. The right hon. Gentleman told them that there was a fanatical movement in Egypt which ought to prevent them from making comments which might make the position more difficult to deal with. There had since then been published among other papers an anonymous letter received by Lord Cromer ostensibly from a Moslem, but written in a style that astonished all students of the letter. The authenticity of the letter had caused the greatest doubt. It had been called in question by one who knew Egypt so well as Mr. Edward Dicey. That letter said that there was a general feeling among the Moslem population that if there should be a conflict between Turkey and any Christian Power, the tendency would be to take the side of Turkey. In that letter there was no new proposition. Such a statement had been made again and again and disregarded by Lord Cromer. In any case it was entirely irrelevant to the question of the Denshawai executions. It was admitted in a white document officially published that the assault upon British officers had nothing to do with any political movement. At the time this occurrence took place this House was shut, most of the leading Egyptian officials were away on furlough; Lord Cromer himself was absent, a there was noboly there to deal with any spirit of unrest which was said to exist. Evidently there was no fear of it on the part of the officials; and they could fitly discuss the sentences passed in the Denshawai case, though they could not go into the details of the trial. Even now the evidence taken at the trial was not before the House. Of course, no blame whatever attached to the right hon. Baronet; but if he had been content to publish to the House the semi-official reports given in the Egyptian Gazette they would have been regarded by most Members as quite sufficient grounds to discuss the matter on its merits. Great credit had been claimed officially on the score that all the judges were more or less familiar with Arabic.
1824
From all the reports which he had seen, however, they made extremely little use of their knowledge. The examination of fifty accused natives took but thirty minutes, and the bulk of the evidence was given by British officers. The papers which had been published alone sufficed to show that the charge of premeditation was not only false, but absurd. The only evidence as to premeditation was a suggestion that the fire broke out in the village about the time of the affray, and that that fire must have been the signal for premeditated action. The fact was that the officers came on the scene utterly unexpected by the villagers. The villagers resented the intrusion, and the affray followed it. He brought no species of charges against the officers. One had paid an appalling penalty for any indiscretion which they might have committed. He did not desire to charge them with more than indiscretion, except that there was one question which would have to be discussed when the matter was fully before the House. When that happened he should wish to discuss whether the gun which went off and wounded four natives was fired in the hands of Lieutenant Parker, or after having left his hands. He should be glad to accept the view that it was fired after it had left his hands, but it must be noted that he was put under arrest with a view to pacifying the villagers.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, with out Amendment.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners; the House went; and, having returned; Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to a number of Acts. (See Col. 1789).)
Question again proposed, "That this House at its rising to-day do adjourn until Tuesday, 23rd October next, and that for the remainder of the session Government business have precedence at every sitting, and at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House with out Question put."
MR. J. M. ROBERTSONresumed his speech, maintaining that there was no evidence of anything in the nature of premeditation in connection with the Denshawai affray. A brutal assault was committed by the villagers, but they were provoked by what they might well have considered a trespass on the part of the officers. Mr. Findlay's assertion that the evidence was sufficient to convict six of the accused persons of murder was absurd; there was no murder. The blow doubtless might have pre cipitated the collapse, but he ventured to say that the officer would not have died of the blow had he not made the gallant run he did. It was clear that Major Pyne-Coffin could not have supposed that the officer was dangerously wounded, or he would never have ordered him to run six miles to the camp to bring help. It must not be forgotten that they were dealing with a very primitive people, who were exasperated, and were fairly quarrelsome at all times. Granting all that, it was not a murder. If the official who had asserted that any English jury would have found the first six prisoners guilty of murder, believed what he said, he was unfit to hold office anywhere in the British Empire. If he were not to be believed in what he said he was equally unfit to hold office. It was this egregious official who, in a letter in the White Book, had passed what must be termed a presumptuous censure on this House. It was he who figured on the one hand as grossly misrepresenting an act that was not murder at all, and then, on the other hand, as a person entitled to pass judgment on the House of Commons when some hon. Members protested against the affair. Yet that official had been allowed to publish his censure. It ought to be in the power of the Foreign Office to say what they thought about the matter. The official had been guilty of one of the grossest attempts to put a false aspect on the matter, and he had further falsified the facts when he said deplorable effects had been produced in Egypt by what was said in this House. The deplorable effects were produced by the executions. This was the old spectacle of an incompetent bureaucrat attempting to put the blame for blunders upon everyone else rather than where it properly
1826
lay—on himself. The official was in fact, trying to bluff this House. In view of the publication of this letter as an official letter he was sure the right hon. Baronet would admit that whatever he might think of the position in Egypt the House was bound to say something in its own defence. This was another illustration of that which occurred during the South African War, when every species of rational or humane criticism on the conduct of the war was met by the cry that the critic was helping the enemy. They must say nothing whatever, when their country's fortunes were in grave danger, against the men endangering them, because you might encourage the other side. They had seen what amount of sincerity underlay that kind of argument. They had seen a responsible politician broadly hinting to an old enemy that he was expected to rebel. Broad hints had been given to the old enemy that he was expected to dismiss all the British in the Civil Service of the Transvaal. Politicians who took up that point of view would, he supposed, still condemn him for asking the House to condemn what had been done in Egypt. He would recall to the House the admirable line of action that was recently taken by the Secretary of State for India in a somewhat similar case. Through an official miscarriage an appeal made by a man under sentence of death was not received by the authorities to whom it was sent until the man had been executed. In that case what happened at most was a very grave informality, and it involved no serious miscarriage of justice; yet the Secretary of State passed a grave and serious censure upon those concerned. Why could not a similar censure be passed in the far more serious, atrocious, and lamentable case of these executions in Egypt? There were, he supposed, two reasons why it should not be passed. First there was the official point of view. The officials in Egypt apparently supposed there was a need of terrorism at the present time, and that in dealing with crime they must do more than suppress it and deal out just punishment; in fact, that they must resort to what had been most justly termed in another direction methods of barbarism, and

1827
terrify by wholesale slaughter for an act which would here rank as homicide. The only justification was the old plea that they must leave the matter in the hands of the man on the spot. He knew no more absurd line of action than that the man on the spot was to be trusted because he was the man on the spot. They knew this man on the spot in the past. History showed that he was a wrecker of civilisation, a bungler in his business, and at all times a false prophet. The whole process in this case could be summed up thus: it was an act of revenge for not displaying a want of due respect towards a body of British officers, and such an act was sure to be applauded by a number of politicians who stood with equal devotion for religion in the schools and revenge in the forum. Mr. Findlay, the gentleman who said that any British jury would have found those men guilty of murder, said the brutal attack on British officers had nothing to do with political animosity, but that it was due to the insubordinate spirit sedulously fostered during the past year by unscrupulous agitators. Here was a village in Egypt where, so far as they knew, all the inhabitants were illiterates, and in no way could have been affected by any agitation that went on in the journals of Cairo. It was another false pretence of the bureau cratic party. Mr. Findlay, describing the trials, said there was no trace of panic or vindictiveness. He ventured to say there was no trace of anything else. If the taking the lives of four men for one act of homicide, the flogging of eight others, and the sentencing of others to penal servitude, was not an act of vindictiveness, no act of vindictiveness ever took place in human history. The very well-intentioned course of the Secretary of State in begging this House not to discuss the matter, and his reasons for giving that advice, had not helped to improve the situation. The right hon. Gentleman brought a sort of sweeping charge against the fanaticism of the people of Egypt. What had been the result? Already the people of Egypt were not only outraged at the bloodshed, but outraged at the right hon. Gentleman's allegation. They declared that there was no other country in the world
1828
where there was less exhibition of fanaticism. If some of them had been in this House during the debates on the Education Bill they might with the same amount of plausibility have applied a similar comment upon the affairs of this country. There was far more fanaticism in India at the present moment than in Egypt. The whole judicial episode would have been impossible in India; and no Indian official, however misguided or wrong-headed, would have ventured to say that such a proceeding was justified. In this connection they might recall the very strong feeling in Japan against the introduction of an alien civilisation fifty or sixty years ago. Brutal assaults upon foreigners were frequent, and more than one Legation lost a member from this cause. Legation buildings were set fire to, and the assassinations were of a very savage character. There was then, if ever, ground for panic, and some display of vindictiveness on the part of the white population; but no one ever proposed to the Government of Japan that it should resort to public executions or any species of torture; and human life in Japan was now as safe as anywhere in Europe, because panic was not allowed to rule, and the officials were not led to become, as they usually did in such cases, cruel cowards. What could be said of civilisation in Egypt when such proceedings as these could take place? Even Lord Cromer proposed that there should be in future a revision of the sentences of this abnormal tribunal. Well might Lord Cromer propose it. The tribunal had no code whatever, and was free to inflict any punishment. Lord Cromer further suggested that it would be well to stop flogging, but there he was in opposition to Mr. Findlay, who thought that there should be flogging; because, as he put it, the Egyptian was a fatalist, and did not greatly fear death. In that case, the executions were doubly indefensible. There was no reason for thinking that offences against the Army of occupation could not be duly punished by the tribunals that already existed in Egypt. Court-martial action of this kind ought not to be possible in Egypt or anywhere else. If an officer was assaulted why could the matter not be dealt with in the ordinary way? In the past such acts had been

1829
severely punished, and again and again after such offences had been met by due punishments, attempts had been made on the official side to secure more exemplary punishments. The military authorities always seemed to have the idea of making an example of someone. With regard to the financial administration of Lord Cromer, that was above his criticism. He had greatly improved the condition of Egypt altogether, and praise was due to him upon that score. That, however, was no reason for putting Lord Cromer above the law. They had heard a good deal about the danger of putting trade unions above the law, and it was just as dangerous to put Lord Cromer above the law. The action of the authorities in regard to the execution in Egypt would have been reprimanded in any other part of the Empire save Egypt. The great deeds of Lord Cromer were no reason for permitting under his control acts of mere revenge which were unworthy of the traditions of the British Empire.
MR. MOLTENOsaid he would like to say at the outset of his remarks how warmly he welcomed the statement that the Government intended to confer upon the Orange River Colony a similar measure of self-government to that which they had conferred upon the Transvaal. That announcement would allay any feeling of doubt and suspicion that had arisen in South Africa as well as in this country. He wished to express his regret that the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had stated that the Dutch were engaged in a seditious propaganda in South Africa. They had it on the authority of Lord Milner that the Dutch had frankly observed the Vereeniging Treaty. Personally he had had a great deal to do with South Africa and he knew of no such state of things as that which had been asserted by the hon. Member, and he deeply regretted that such a statement had been made in this House. With regard to the Denshawi executions, upon a former occasion the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asked the House not to criticise that incident until they were in possession of the facts. To-day they were in possession of those facts, and he trusted that in what he had to say he would not be
1830
unmindful of the difficulties which those who administered the affairs of Egypt had to meet in the discharge of their duties. He did not, however, think that the man on the spot was the person who ought to be entrusted with the policy and the principle which ought to be administered in Egypt. Those were matters which ought to be settled in this House, and they could not escape from their responsibilities in regard to that matter. Therefore, he thought it was quite right and proper that they should discuss this matter. He did not propose to go into detail, but he would just state the salient facts. They had had four executions for one death, and they had reported to the system of flogging and public executions. He regretted that they had adopted that extremely hasty method of dealing with this question. What was the condition of the country? Was there anything to justify resorting to such extreme measures? It was a fair reflection of the position when they realised that this special tribunal, which was created in 1895, had only been called into operation once. It could hardly be suggested that these outrages had followed upon any serious outbreak of crime, or that the state of the country justified them in resorting to such drastic punishments. He found that this crime had been described as homicide with robbery. It was curious that Mr. Findlay described it as a particularly brutal and premeditated murder. He thought the punishments had been very excessive. Two persons had been condemned to penal servitude for life, and sixty years penal servitude had been divided amongst ten persons. Flogging had been carried out in such a way as to create a sense of honor to all those who read the Blue-book. Even Lord Cromer suggested that in future the decision of this special tribunal should be confirmed by some superior authority, and his Lordship did not conceal his dislike of this mode of procedure. He also proposed that the terms of the decree should be so amended as to permit in the future punishments of this kind to come under the penal code. Where the ordinary law did not permit these punishments to be carried out they should not be allowed

1831
to resort to this special tribunal. He hoped the Government would give their support to the suggestions which had been made by Lord Cromer. He would also like to know if the Minister for Foreign Affairs could tell them what sort of defence was set up by the prisoners. He should also be glad to know whether the evidence given at the trial would be forthcoming. Then there were the circumstances attending the death of a native. A native was found with his head broken open, and apparently a court of inquiry was held to go into that subject. Had that inquiry been concluded and what was the result? [Cries of "Divide."| The tone of the despatch as far as Mr. Findlay was concerned seemed to him to be wholly unsatisfactory, for he used certain threats if they adopted the course of discussing these matters in the House of Commons. It did not seem to him to be quite proper for any officials to make threats of that kind to this House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: The hon. Member who has just sat down has corrected an omission in the speech of the hon. Member for Tyneside, when he referred to the appeal which I made on a previous occasion not to discuss this question. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire pointed out that I asked the House not to discuss the matter until we had full information before us. The hon. Member for Tyneside omitted that, and that was really the point of my appeal. The Court in Egypt was com posed of the highest Judges. It had come to a decision, after taking evidence for three days, on a very serious case, and if the House of Commons had rushed to the assumption, and had been un willing to wait for further information before it came to the assumption, that such a decision must necessarily be wrong, the effect must have been most prejudicial and must have conveyed the impression abroad that, the moment anything occurred which the House of Commons did not quite understand, it was at once assumed that the official on the spot was to blame. That impression I wished to avoid, and I have
1832
to thank the House for having responded as they did to the appeal which I made the other day. Of course it follows from that, that now the Papers are before the House, I do not complain of anybody exercising his right of saying what he thinks upon them. But I must demur to the suggestion that the anonymous letter, published in the Blue-book, addressed to Lord Cromer is to be put on one side. Lord Cromer is likely to be the best judge of whether such a letter is likely to be genuine or not. I read that letter with very great interest, and it seemed to me to bear on the face of it evidence that it probably represented, as nearly as you can get it from one person, the truth of the native mind. The first intimation I got, after we came into office, of restlessness — I do not want to use the word fanaticism if it is objected to—or of unsettled feeling in Egypt was in the very early days, at a time when we were one of four Powers in occupation of certain islands belonging to the Sultan because of difficulties which had arisen with Turkey about the Macedonian question. That fact had begun to have its effect in Egypt, and when you have conflicts of that kind with the Turkish Government—conflicts which, unfortunately, it is impossible for us to avoid—you may be quite sure it is bound to have a certain effect on the Mahomedan races who are under British rule or in countries under British occupation. Then there was the further difficulty about the frontier question—at one time a very serious matter—and, undoubtedly, any body who reads the Akabah Blue-book will see that it is perfectly natural, and indeed inevitable, that there should have been restlessness and an unsettled feeling created by these occurrences. I think that in time that will pass, but it has been necessary already to increase the garrison in Egypt. That was done some months ago, and, undoubtedly, if that feeling were to spread, we should have to take the further measures to which Mr. Findlay refers for still further increasing the garrison. It was that sort of step which I wished to avoid, and that was why I deprecated premature discussion in the House on this particular question. The nature of the speech of the hon. Member for Tyneside makes it necessary for me to

1833
say one or two words on a personal matter in connection with this subject. I regret much of the language which was used by the hon Member for Tyneside. Surely if your officials have done wrong, you can criticise them without calling them constantly "cowardly officials."
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I did not apply that term to Mr. Findlay.
SIR EDWARD GREY: No. The hon. Member applied it generally, but those terms were constantly used throughout the hon. Member's speech.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: There was no constant reference to cowardly officials at all. There was no imputation of that kind against the officials in this case, and I only spoke of Mr. Findlay because he had, in a letter which the right hon. Gentleman has published, made an attack upon this House.
SIR EDWARD GREY: I will come to Mr. Findlay in a moment. But there were other expressions in the speech of the hon. Member which I think were equally unfortunate. If you are to assume, where you think a mistake has been made, that your officials in general are likely to be guilty either of moral or intellectual deficiencies, and if you are to assume and to adopt the tone that they have done wrong, you are undoubtedly adopting a tone which would make it quite impossible to conduct the business of the British Empire. Let me come to the question of Mr. Findlay. I think the hon. Member for Tyneside has mistaken the character of the particular telegram from Mr. Findlay with which he found so much fault, and which, I could not help thinking, was in part responsible for the tone of much of his speech. I think that if he had not regarded it as a provocative telegram, his own language would have been softer than it was. I do not think it was so intended by Mr. Findlay. I did not take it so. I did not take it at all as a criticism of the House of Commons, but at a statement of the effect which, as Mr. Findlay said, it was his duty to make. If I made a statement, or used language in this House which had a prejudicial effect abroad, I should expect
1834
the officials of the Diplomatic Service to inform me of what that effect had been, and I should consider it their duty to do so. Mr. Findlay was, in my opinion, quite rightly performing his duty in saying what the effect, as a matter of fact, and not of criticism, of certain proceedings in the House of Commons would be on the spot, and I think he was bound to say so. One of the difficulties of governing the British Empire is that criticism of what is done in various parts of the Empire is always certain to have a disturbing effect on the spot. That is not always the paramount consideration, but the officials on the spot ought to let us know what it is, because it is one of the elements which we must take into account in forming a judgment. I might, on some future occasion, find it my duty to use language in the House which I knew would have an unfortunate effect in a particular country abroad, but which, for graver considerations, I thought it necessary to use. I should expect our representative abroad to tell me the effect on the spot, but I should reserve to myself the decision of whether that was or was not to be the paramount consideration. In this case Mr. Findlay was bound to point out what the effect of discussion in this House would be; and that leaves it to the House to decide whether that effect should be the paramount consideration or not. I do not think he has gone beyond his duty in stating the fact. As Mr. Findlay has been attacked, I must say that his whole career in the Diplomatic Service makes us sure that he is a man of character and ability who is fitted to render useful service. As to whether the telegram, if sent, ought to have been published, I knew that it was not sent for publication; but I had promised the House the fullest information; I wished to edit these things as little as possible; and I published the message in order to give the House the full truth, so that they might bear the consideration in mind. I left it to the House to consider what weight it ought to have with them, just as Mr. Findlay left it to me. The House should take it as a statement of fact, and not as criticism upon itself—the placing before it of

1835
facts which, however disagreeable, ought to be borne in mind. As to the trial itself, I have promised that the evidence shall be published; but it is quite impossible that a case of this kind, which has been tried by the highest tribunal in Egypt, should be retried in the House of Commons with some Members for the defence and some for the prosecution. The House may say— Is it impossible that any decision of this special tribunal should be reconsidered? The tribunal corresponds to what over here would be a tribunal of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chief justice, and other Judges; and I do not see how you can have any legal appeal. But from any tribunal however high there should be some room for appeal to the prerogative of mercy. Another point is the question of holding executions in public. At best I think it is a very doubtful expedient and should never be resorted to except in the rarest cases; and flogging in public I should say should never be resorted to. As to the nature of the punishment which this court might inflict under the decree, that decree was passed only eleven years ago. This is the first serious occasion on which it has been brought into operation; and I think it is quite natural that certain defects in the decree should be disclosed. Lord Cromer, after reviewing the whole of the proceedings, has dealt with all these points and has suggested that there should be certain modifications in the decree; and they will receive the prompt support of His Majesty's Government. For the rest, I entirely agree with Lord Cromer's interesting memorandum re viewing the whole case. I agree with his opinions. I agree with what he confirms as well as with what he suggests for modification. But when we come to the question of responsibility in Egypt, it is not so easy to talk about "the man on the spot"In Egypt as in some other cases. It is assumed that the man on the spot is always wrong. Sometimes he is wrong, and the consequences are bad. Sometimes he is right, and the consequences are still bad, because he is not listened to. But in Egypt the responsibility is very difficult to state. Egypt is not a Crown colony. It is governed
1836
under the Khedive by a Government partly of natives and partly of British officials, and the whole Government has the most complicated machine behind it —the British occupation. But Lord Cromer's guiding principle has been to advise in matters of general policy, but to interfere as little as possible in matters of administration with the actual working of the machine itself. As to certain matters he is absolutely powerless. In the first place, where European interests are concerned, the power lies not in his hands, or in those of the Egyptian Government, but, under the Capitulations, in the hands of fifteen different Powers. In the second place, all questions connected with the Mahomedan religious and special judicial institutions are outside his control altogether. In the third place, all civil and criminal matters are administered by Judges who are for the most part irremovable and who are entirely independent. These are serious inroads on responsibility, and if anyone were to study on paper what the Egyptian Government is, combined with the British occupation, they would come to the conclusion that it is an unwork able system. But Lord Cromer h s succeeded in making it work for many years. But it is very complicated, and on any question of administration as apart from policy, it must be exceedingly difficult to say where and how the responsibility is to be placed. If you wish to simplify this state of things, one course would be to turn Egypt into a Crown colony. But that means an enormous change involving great political changes quite out of the question—such as the disappearance of the Khedive and other things affecting the whole international situation. I put a change of that kind out of account. It is not within the range of practical politics. Or you might simplify the question of responsibility by leaving Egypt again to native rule, or, rather, what it would soon become, to Turkish administration. The responsibility would then be simplified, but the result would not be satisfactory. And no one thinks of that course any more than of turning Egypt into a Crown colony as a matter of practical politics. The question of the Chinese Customs—a most important point—has

1837
been raised. With regard to Sir Robert Hart, we have had no information that he intends to resign, and I am not in a position to say what his intentions may be. I assume that when he does resign he will take some more direct method of intimating the fact than that which has hitherto been staled in the Press. With regard to the Chinese Customs, I do regard it as most vital in the interests of trade, in the interests of Chinese revenue, and in the interests of Chinese credit, that the administration of the Customs should be maintained on the lines on which it has been so successfully worked hitherto, and that it should be maintained as an efficient and honest administration. Chinese progress is intimately bound up with the maintenance of the Chinese Customs on the lines laid down by Sir Robert Hart, and that is a subject which will receive the close attention of His Majesty's Government. On the question of the Baghdad Railway I have no statement to make. That railway is a German concession. One section of it has been made. I admit it is an enterprising and important undertaking. If, later on, cither this country or other Powers interested in that part of the world are to be brought into the matter, it will be because they are brought in by agreement with the German interests. When the Germans wish for participation, then will be time enough to discuss whether any countries, and, if so, what countries, should participate, and if so, on what conditions. With regard to the in crease of the customs duties in Turkey, I will only say we have not yet agreed to that increase. It is true we have stated certain conditions on which we are prepared to agree. If we do agree it will be for a limited period of years, and I think the time to discuss whether our action was right or not can only arise when we have taken definite steps and can place our policy before the House.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid his object in rising was to ask the Secretary for Scotland as to the nature of the Bill which he had introduced the other day in regard to land legislation. He understood that it was based upon compulsory purchase, but
1838
he now understood that it was based not upon compulsory purchase, but compulsory leasing, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clear up any doubt upon that point. The Bill not being in print, it was not possible to ascertain its objects with certainty. He did not rise to criticise the provisions of the Bill, but having served on the Small Holdings Committee he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep his mind to some extent open in order to ascertain more clearly upon the evidence which that Committee had taken, whether greater flexibility could be secured in regard to the small holdings which might be set up. By flexibility he meant this. In one part of the country they had freeholders established, in another they had yearly tenants, or they might have a system of feuars, as they termed them in Scotland, who were there under permanent conditions; If a system of permanent leasing was introduced they would have to create a comprehensive system of rules and regulations and the system must be based upon dual ownership. He believed that dual ownership was the worst possible form of tenure. He therefore laid great stress upon this question of flexibility, and he thought it would be very disastrous to the success of small holdings if that flexibility were wanting. The State could perfectly well purchase the land required, whether for small holdings or for the holdings contemplated by his right hon. friend in his Bill. The lands should be purchased upon a large and adequate scale, and where small holdings were required a great deal could be done in the way of organisation. That should be started in suitable centres rather than upon any scattered scale throughout the land, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find opposition to his proposals if he took the opportunities of purchase as they offered. Some of the owners might object to purchase, he thought wrongly, because in his opinion it was a proper check upon the vagaries of particular owners, and every farmer, he was afraid, would object to a proposal by which he would see other people put down upon his farm. Desiring as he did most earnestly the creation of small holdings, he could not conceal from him self that, compulsory leasing being the

1839
basis of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he took full advantage of the Report of the Small Holdings Committee which had not yet come to hand.
*MR. MORTONcalled the attention of the Prime Minister to a grievance which existed in a district (Elphin) in Sutherlandshire. Early in the year a petition was sent from this district to the Postmaster-General asking for a telegraph station as there was not one within about twenty miles. In reply the people were asked to guarantee the whole of the expense, £100 per annum, whereas they had been promised in the debates arising out of the Budget, that two-thirds would be borne by the Department. The Prime Minister had said that we ought to colonise our own country. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was greatly welcomed all over the country, and the carrying out of it would greatly aid the settlement of the "unemployed" question, and he (Mr. Morton) hoped that it would have the immediate attention of his right hon. friend. In Sutherland increased postal and telegraphic services were urgently needed, and ho hoped that the Prime Minister would see that the poor crofters in Sutherland were treated as well as the rich people in other counties. He also wished to know on behalf of the hon. Member for South Gloucestershire whether the Home Secretary proposed to legislate upon the question of vaccination. Vaccination was a very trouble some question, but at least all parties should be treated equally before the law. With regard to the land question in Scotland which had been raised by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs, he did not propose to go into that further than to say that the Scottish people seemed more anxious as a rule to rent than to purchase land. There should be compulsory renting of the land with the option, if necessary, of compulsory purchase, the object being to induce the land owner to let at a fair rent with fixity of tenure and no unfair conditions.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLAD STONE,replied that the present condition of the law was extremely
1840
unsatisfactory, and he would be glad to see it amended. But the Home Office only had to administer the law as it stood. He believed the whole administration of the Vaccination Act was under the consideration of his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,)said he recognised to the full the cordial support Sir Arthur Bignold had given to the main provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill. In him everybody recognised a progressive and enlightened owner of land who was desirous to open up the land, as far as possible for the benefit of the people of his own country. He was sorry that the Bill was not in the hands of Members, but the delay would only be brief.
MR. MORTON: Will it be next week?
MR. SINCLAIR: Probably. As he had said before, they wished to open up the land in the interests of the country, and that could only be done gradually; the Bill attempted nothing else, and it held out certain inducements which, in the belief of the Government, would mean progress in that direction. But the Bill rested mainly upon agreement, and it was hoped that the adjustments might be carried out largely by agreement. It was only where agreement was found impossible, and where, for instance, there might be unreasonable refusal on the part of one of many interested in the land, or where one might be unable or unwilling to give his consent, that the exercise of compulsory powers came in, and then only after careful examination by public authority of a semi-judicial character, with every possible safeguard for existing rights. It was agreed on all hands, at any rate on the Ministerial side of the House, that compulsion, in some form or other, was absolutely necessary. It was certainly the experience of those bodies who had worked land legislation in Scotland that without compulsion in some form or other their whole efforts could not be properly and successfully developed. The question raised to-day was, should

1841
there be purchase, or was it possible to attain, the object in view by compulsory letting of the land? If so, must they transfer the whole ownership of the land, or was it possible to transfer the use of the land in the public interest? Looking at it from the point of view of the public interest, what were the conditions under which small holdings might have some prospect of being successful? As his hon. friend hid suggested, there must be some regard to markets, communications, transport, and security of tenure, without which combination would not be under taken for this purpose. All these objects so far as he could see, could equally be achieved by a system of compulsory letting as by a system of compulsory purchase. Then there was the land owner's interest. He did not think he was wrong in assuming that in a large majority of cases the landowners of the country were willing to let their capital remain in the land, even under the new conditions, if the return to them was going to be equal under the new conditions to what it had been under the old. Why then force them to remove their capital? The obstacle hitherto to the development of small holdings had been the initial obstacle of expense.
MR. G. CROYDON MARKScalled attention to the fact there were not forty Members present.
House counted and forty Members being found present.
MR. SINCLAIR,resuming, said there had been endeavours to overcome the obstacle of expense, as hon. Members would see when they studied the pro visions of the Bill, if not wholly, at any rate in part. In contrasting again the system of purchase with the system of letting, he would point out that under the system of letting the landlord was relieved from his outlay on repairs, and got a net rent, while a return was secured to the tenant, who was all the time improving the interests of the land, and if the land was sold in the public interest then the landlord reaped his share, and the largest share of the increment, in the capital value of the land. So much for the public interest and the landlord's
1842
interest. They were familiar with the system of purchase, and his hon. friend had expressed his view of the system of compulsory leases as a rigid and not flexible system. Under the Crofters Act he thought there had been more renouncement of tenancy in the taking of poor and the larger holdings, more interchange of occupancy of holdings, than had been possible under any system of land purchase. Added to that, the amount of capital needed for the holding was much less in the case of the occupying tenant than in the case of the owner; but on the whole there was good ground for the belief in Scotland that for the needs of Scotland a system of occupying tenancy was certainly desired. In conclusion he expressed the hope that hon. Members would be good enough to reserve any final conclusion until they saw the Bill in print.
*MR. ESSEXinvited the President of the Local Government Board to state whether in a short period of time he would pass under review the present Poor Law system of the country. The separation of aged couples in workhouses was a scandal and an outrage. Then the system which obtained throughout our rural villages of compelling sons and daughters to contribute to the maintenance of their parents in workhouses, often inflicted hardships upon people who out of very slender earnings had already to provide for a family. He did not for very good reasons move the reduction of the Vote when it was under consideration, for he would much rather address his plea to the right hon. Gentleman's heart.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANassured his hon. friend who had just sat down that his right hon. friend the head of the Department was well aware of the condition of things to which reference had been made, for he had had the advantage from sitting next to his right hon. friend of seeing the notes he had taken in. legible hand writing. Postal facilities in the Highlands also was a matter of which he had no doubt the Treasury realised the importance while having regard to the general interest of taxpayers. He made a little

1843
appeal now to the House, after the olla podrida of the day, including some little matters and others of great importance. Mr. Speaker had been in the chair for a long time during a great many days and nights and he was sure was anxious to be relieved from his duties for a time. It was convenience to have Mr. Speaker and the overburdened officials of the House to put this plea upon, while all the time it was themselves who wished to get away; but from Mr. Speaker downwards they all wished to go, and unless there was any matter of such urgency to raise that it could not go over till October he appealed to hon. Members to consult the feelings and comfort of their fellow Members by bringing the discussion to a close.
MR. SEDDONsaid he would willingly respond to the Prime Minister's appeal, but asked two minutes in order to call attention to the disorders in Widnes on a question of a right of public meeting in a public square. The right of meeting there had never been questioned until the last few weeks. The dominant Party on the bench was very sore at the great turnover to the Labour Party at the last election, and they had bee persistently summoning people to the Court. He was given to understand that when he left this House he would lose his privilege as a Member, and would become a prison guest of His Majesty. He was afraid that there was likely to be public disorder in Widnes if the Home Secretary did not see his way to use his good influence to secure again the right of public meeting which had been enjoyed for long years in the square.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the facts stated by his hon. friend were not within his knowledge, and he had no control over either the local police or the magistrates, but he would certainly make full inquiry, and he would be glad if he could promote a settlement of any question threatening the public peace.
MR. EVERETTsaid he wanted before the House separated to make an appeal to the Prime Minister that during the recess he and the officials should consider the possibility of effecting further saving of lime in the taking of divisions. The House was very grateful for what had been done in saving time and labour in tramping through the lobbies. Could we not now take a step further? We decided questions by a majority. Why not do as all other public bodies do, vote by show of hands or by standing up, only actually dividing when there was not an un questionable majority visible to the Chairman? Many days of valuable Parliamentary time would be saved in this way in the course of a session, and "the time of Parliament was the treasure of the people." Was not our time more precious instead of less precious than that of other public bodies, none of whom wasted the time in divisions that we did.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this House at its rising to-day do adjourn until Tuesday, 23rd October next, and that for the remainder of the session Government business have precedence at every sitting, and at the conclusion of Government business on each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."

CENSUS OF PRODUCTION (EXPENSES).
Resolution reported,
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any Expenses incurred for the purpose of the Census under any Act of the present session to provide for taking a Census of Production."
Resolution agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th July last, adjourned the House without Question put till Tuesday, 23rd October.
Adjourned at one minute before Two o'clock.