Commons Sitting of 26 February 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred to on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Cardiff Gas Bill; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill; Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; London and India Docks and Millwall Dock Companies Bill; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill; Metropolitan Railway Bill; Midland Railway Bill; Millwall Dock Bill; North Metropolitan Tramways Bill; North West London Railway Bill; South Metropolitan Gas Bill; South Suburban Gas Bill; Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill; South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill; Watford Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof. Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—City of London Electric Lighting

  759
  Bill; Dowlais Gas Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill; West London Electric Undertakers' Association Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Bacup Corporation Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  Carlisle Corporation Bill; Corporation of London (Blackfriars and other Bridges) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Kettering Water Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  London County Council (Electric Supply) Bill, to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Metropolitan Water Board Bill, read a second time and committed.
  New Mills Urban District Council Bill, Thornton Urban District Gas Bill, Todmorden Corporation Bill, read a second time, and committed.
  Wigan and Heysham Railway Bill, ead a second time, and committed.

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding eleven members, to be called the Police and Sanitary Committee, to whom shall be committed all private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to police or sanitary regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general law
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 150 and 173A apply to all such Bills.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That four be the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered, That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing
  760
  police and sanitary regulations) are such, as having regard to the terms of reference it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of, and be subject to the instructions which apply to, the undivided Committee, and that three be the quorum of each of the two Committees.—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

PETITIONS.
  ADMIRALTY (DISABLED SAILORS AND MARINES).
  Petition from Carlisle, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report and Accounts of the Governors for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Copy presented, of Fourteenth Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Inspection Committee for the year ended 20th

  761
  November, 1905, with Appendices [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 57.]

  NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September, 1845, to the 5th January, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 58.]

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copies presented, of Treasury Minutes granting a retired allowance to each of the following, viz.:—
  William Walter Kellaway, late Engineer (1st Class), Engineer in Chief's Department, Post Office.
  Walter Robert Hoyles, Principal Foreman, Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, War Office.
  Lewis Robert Ambrose, Claudius Robert Brock, Harry Clarke, Henry Eden, Henry Haley, James William Jater, William James Jater, William Samuel Priest, William Taylor, Overseers and Senior Telegraphists, Central Telegraph Office, Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS, 1858 AND 1876.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 26th February, 1906, declaring Hanoi, Tonquin, French Indo-China, to be an unhealthy place within the meaning of the Superannuation Act, 1876 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1905–6).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of the Farther Amount required during the year ending 31st March, 1906, beyond the sum already provided in the Grant for Navy Services for the year [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 59.]

  FACTORY AXD WORKSHOP (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home De-
  762
  partment by G. A. Bonner, esquire, Barrister-at-Law, on the Draft Regulations proposed to be made for the processes of spinning and weaving Flax and Tow, and the processes incidental thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the Council of the Borough of Southport, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of shops within the Borough [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee on Vagrancy, Vol. I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Copy presented, of Regulations made by the Local Government Board under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NEWCASTLE CHAPTER ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February, 1906, establishing two residentiary Canonries in the Cathedral Church of Newcastle in addition to the two established by Order in Council of 26th November, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the table.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February, 1906, exempting certain mixtures of Picric Acid from all restrictions under the Explosives Act, 1875, when kept and conveyed in manner specified [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 16th February, 1906, entitled "The Southern Nigerian Protectorate Order in Council, 1906," [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ROUMANIA (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF) (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Roumania as

  763
  modified by Commercial Treaties with the United Kingdom and Germany; together with a summary of the New Law relating to tare on goods dutiable by weight [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Copy presented, of the Telegraphs (Inland Written Telegraph) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, 1906, dated 1st January, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.

  CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
  Copy of Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1905 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 60.]
  Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Taxes on Food and Drink.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of Exchequer, whether he is aware that the amount of revenue received for taxes on food and drink, both Excise and Customs, during the last twenty years amounts approximately to £800,000,000; and whether he would consider the advisability of reducing the taxes on food by inaugurating a system of taxation, averaging 5 per cent., ad valorem, on imports, as introduced into India by a Liberal Government; if not, whether he would consider the question of a 5 per cent. tax on manufactured goods in place of the present taxes on cocoa and some other articles of general consumption.
    (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am aware that the revenue from taxes on food and drink has amounted during the last twenty years to approximately the amount mentioned by the hon. Member.
    764
    By far the greater part of that revenue has been derived from taxes on alcohol in various forms. The hon. Member will not expect me to deal with specific proposals for altering taxation in anticipation of the Budget statement.

    Land Disturbances at Barhane—Case of John Padden.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether John Padden, who was denounced as a grabber at a meeting at Barhane, near Belmullet, county Mayo, on 3rd October, 1905, arising out of which Mr. John O'Dowd, M.P., and Mr. Conor O'Kelly, M.P., with Mr. James Mills, J.P., were indicted for alleged conspiracy, is still the occupier of the farm formerly rented by an evicted tenant, named Augustus Loftus; and whether John Padden has claimed and received, or is now receiving, police protection.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) John Padden is still in occupation of the farm in question. He has made no application for police protection, but the police are aware of the facts and are taking such steps as they think needed.

    Rents on Colonel Smythe's Estate at Collinstown.
    MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the amount of the rents charged to tenants of Colonel Smythe of Collinstown, Westmeath, which have only been paid in obedience to writs and out of moneys received from America and other extraneous sources; is he aware that the landlord wrote on the 23rd January last an offer, to remain open for a month, to sell at prices based upon those rents; that the proposed sale broke down owing to the landlord's refusal to consider the reinstatement of two evicted tenants whose former holdings are untenanted; and that on the 5th February, before the month for consideration had run half its course, Colonel Smythe had again served some of the tenants with writs for the hanging gale, there being no more due; and whether, seeing that such duress is extensively practised, and a danger to

    765
    social peace and to the security of the State for the payment of annuities so contracted, His Majesty's Government propose to check or counteract in any way such conduct.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) No originating application or request as to the sale of this estate has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and they have no knowledge of the statements of fact alleged in the Question. I have no means of making a satisfactory inquiry as to the facts, and, even supposing them to be as stated, His Majesty's Government would have no power to interfere.

    Improvement of Clifden Harbour County, Galway.
    MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act a sum of money was allotted for the improvement of the Clifden harbour, county Galway, and that such improvement has not yet been carried out, although the last two Chief Secretaries repeatedly promised that no delay should occur in prosecuting the work; and whether he will state when the proposed work will commence.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In March, 1903, the late Government announced to the Galway County Council its intention to allocate from funds provided under the Marine Works Act a sum of £4,000 on works at Kinvarra, Salt Hill, or Clifden, as might be arranged; but I am informed that no promise was made as to works at Clifden in particular. Of the amount mentioned, a sum of £1,100 was eventually allocated to Kinvarra. A difficulty arose in regard to Clifden by reason of the fact that the estimated necessary expenditure at that place amounts to some £9,000, that is to say, at, least three times the amount available. I have now received a resolution of the Clifden Board of Guardians urging the necessity of the works, and I will take a convenient opportunity of looking into the matter. I may remind the hon. Member that, in adition to Kinvarra, a sum of over £8,500 has been allocated for works under the Marine Acts at Cleggan, Roundstone, and Kilronan, in county Galway.

    River Shannon Fisheries Return.
    MR. JOYCE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will grant the Return on to-day's Paper relating to the River Shannon Fisheries.
    Appended is the Return referred to:—
    Return of the amount of money received by the Shannon Navigation Commissioners and the Board of Works as rents or compensation for redundant waters supplied for mills or other purposes under the provisions of the Act 2nd and 3rd of Victoria, chapter 61; the amount of money received by the said Commissioners or the Board of Works in rents for mills, lands, fisheries, or other property, acquired under the said Act, from the year 1839 to the end of the year 1905; the quantity of property so acquired which has been leased or sold; the name of such places; the names of the lessees or purchasers of such places; the dates on which such leases were given and such purchases effected; the number of years for which such leases or purchases have been arranged in each ease.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have already explained by letter to the hon. Member that I am unable to grant this Return.

    Retirement of Mr. McConkey, Irish Board of Works.
    MR. JOYCE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Robert McConkey, an official of the Irish Board of Works, who, after forty-six years service in various parts of Ireland, has been called upon to resign, without any charge, that he knows of, being brought against him, and who, after all those years of service, has been offered the sum of £41 as compensation; and whether he will inquire into this man's case, with a view to granting him a pension.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) This officer was retired in the ordinary course, on the ground of age and infirmity. The appointment which he held (overseer of the Shannon Navigation) did not entitle him to a pension on retirement, and he was treated in accordance with

    767
    the usual practice, under which gratuities have been awarded to officers holding like appointments in the past.

    Action of Dublin Police against Mr. Leech.
    MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the recent proceedings before the police magistrate in Dublin in the case of Mr. Peter Leech, a member of the licensed trade; whether he is aware that the charge against Mr. Leech was made by a police sergeant named McElroy, whose sworn testimony the magistrate refused to believe, and whose action in the case he stated that he would report to the Commissioner of Police before he had heard the evidence for the accused or the statement of his legal representative; and will he say whether such a report has been received, and what action is the Government going to take.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In this case the magistrate dismissed the complaint against Mr. Leech with a caution. In the course of the hearing the magistrate characterised the sergeant's evidence, relating to the production of a notebook, as contradictory and inaccurate, but did not say that he disbelieved the sergeant's evidence upon the main issue. The Chief Commissioner suitably admonished the sergeant for his carelessness, but was satisfied that he made no wilful misstatement.

    Sub-Land Commissioner M Elligott.
    MR. J. P. Farrell: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the language used by Sub-Commissioner M'Elligott when valuing tenants' holdings in county Longford; and whether he will direct an inquiry into the fitness of this gentleman to give an impartial decision as between landlord and tenant in the fixing of fair rents in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission are not aware of any complaint as to language used by Mr. M'Elligot when valuing tenants' holdings. Any complaints on the subject should be brought to the knowledge of the Land
    768
    Commission. As regards the question of impartiality, I may point out that the decisions of the Sub-Commission Court are subject to appeal.

    Compulsory Sale of Irish Estates.
    MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners contemplate taking any action in regard to those landlords in the West of Ireland and elsewhere who, under any condition or at any price, refuse to sell to their tenants under the Land Act of 1903.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge, other than that which may be gained from the public Press, that there are any landlords in the West of Ireland or elsewhere, to whom the terms of the Question apply. If there be any such, the Commissioners have no power to interfere.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Cases of Margaret Fraser and Thomas Kent at Mitchelstown.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners have yet considered the applications for reinstatement of Margaret Fraser and Thomas Kent, evicted tenants on the estate of the Countess of Kingston, Michelstown, as promised when this estate has been inspected.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estate Commissioners will consider the applications of these evicted tenants when the estate is being inspected, which will probably be about the end of next month.

    Legal Advertisements in Dublin.
    MR. CONDON: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the officials of some of the Chancery Courts in Dublin require the solicitors to advertise legal notices in connection with cases pending in these courts in the General Advertiser newspaper, Dublin; and whether, in view of the circulation of that newspaper compared with that of the other Dublin newspapers, he will explain why that

    769
    particular newspaper is selected, and will he announce that in future the other Dublin newspapers shall be capable of selection by the solicitor having carriage of the case.
    (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) This is not a matter which in any way comes within my jurisdiction. The judges of the Chancery Division in Ireland have entire control of the advertising in their own courts, but I have made inquiries from their offices and I am informed that in the Lord Chancellor's Chambers and the Land Judge's Court the newspapers for advertisements are, as a rule, selected by the solicitors in the proceedings, and that advertisements are rarely published in the General Advertiser. The practice in the Chambers of the Master of the Rolls and Mr. Justice Barton is to require one advertisement in the General Advertiser, the reason for this rule being that it is considered desirable to have one newspaper in which parties may be sure of seeing all advertisements, and the General Advertiser is considered the most suitable for the purpose.

    Promotion of Junior Supervisor in the Excise Outdoor Department.
    MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a junior supervisor in the Excise Outdoor Department has been appointed over the heads of 100 of his colleagues without any reasons being assigned for this proceeding; will he say what special qualification this gentleman had which his seniors did not possess, and have any reasons been since given for making this appointment; and will he abolish such a cover for favouritism.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The appointment referred to in the hon. Member's Question was one for which very special qualifications were required. The Board selected the senior officer who appeared to them to possess those qualifications in the requisite degree.

    Alien Immigration Statistics for January.
    MR. LEVY. To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the delay in the issue of the list of alien immigrant
    770
    arrivals from the Continent in January is due to any new form in which it is intended to publish the figures; and whether the Return will state the number of rejections, the reasons for such rejections, and the number of appeals to the Immigration Boards, and their results.
    (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Act under which the information as to alien immigration from the Continent hitherto published was obtained has been repealed by the Aliens Act of last Session. Statistics are being compiled under the new Act with the view of giving in due course all the information possible with regard to the question of alien immigration in this country, but a stage has not yet been reached at which the periods for the publication of these statistics can usefully be settled.

    Loan for Erection of a Dust Destructor at Acton.
    MR. NIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the application by the Acton Urban District Council for sanction to a loan for the erection of a dust destructor on a site next to a now large public elementary school; and whether the Board will decline to give their sanction to a loan for such a purpose, other suitable sites being obtainable.
    (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) have had before me the application referred to. In all the circumstances of the case I do not propose to sanction the loan, and I have so informed the urban district council.

    Postal Facilities at Collins town, County Westmeath.
    MR. GINNELL: TO ask the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that letters for Collinstown postal district, Westmeath, are brought in the morning from Streete Station to Castlepollard and kept there for nearly eight hours, with a loss of a business day to the persons addressed; that the post car could, at a merely nominal cost, go on to Collinstown and rest there instead of at Castlepollard; if he has seen a memorial presented to his predecessor last July praying this to be

    771
    done; and if he will give that memorial favourable consideration now, or requires one more extensively signed.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A memorial on this subject was, as the hon. Member states, presented to my predecessor in July last, and the question was then fully examined. I find that the cost of the whole postal service in the district is already very high compared with the amount of correspondence, and I regret that I should not be justified in incurring further expenditure for the purpose of carrying out the improvement desired.

    The Loishilman Railway.
    MR. HART DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India, what the length of the proposed Loishilman railway is to be; what is the intended terminus of the line, which apparently starts from near Jamrud; whether the line is for strategical or commercial purposes; on what gauge is it to be constructed; and what is the estimated total cost.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The length of the proposed railway is 22½ miles; its terminus is a point on the Kabul river, known as "mile 300"; it is undertaken both for strategic and for commercial purposes; its gauge is 5 feet 6 inches; and the estimated total cost is 50 lakhs of rupees.

    Nationalist and Orange Disturbance at Glasslough, County Monaghan.
    MR. O'HARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has been received from the county Monaghan police authorities as to a disturbance which took place at Glasslough, county Monaghan; whether he is aware that a police sergeant named Bennett intercepted a Nationalist band and, on their declining to obey his command, an attack was made upon them by an Orange mob headed by two local postmen named Hearst; will he say by what right Bennett prevented the Nationalist band marching along the public road; and whether any official cognizance will be taken of the action of the Messrs. Hearst, who are engaged in the postal service.
    772
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.): I am informed that this incident is the subject of proceedings pending at petty sessions against the police sergeant and others, and, following the invariable practice, I must decline to make any statement in the matter while those proceedings are sub judice.

    Mortuary for Rathmines and Rathgar Districts.
    MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that no morgue has been provided for the urban district of Rathmines and Rathgar, with the result that inquests in that district must frequently be held in public houses, while the dead bodies are kept in stables and outhouses; and whether he will, through the Local Government Board, urge on the District Council of Rathmines to provide such necessaries as a morgue before proceeding with any further schemes for extending the boundaries of their district.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The circumstances mentioned do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board; but the Board have ascertained that the Rathmines Urban District Council have decided to include in next year's estimate the necessary provision for the erection of a morgue.

    Trials of Chinese Labourers.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in what respects the trial of Chinese labourers will in future differ from the past, in view of the fact that they will still be tried by the same official, and that the proceedings will still be conducted in the Chinese language; and whether an English interpreter will be present at all trials.
    (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It is proposed to retain the present system of trial, which gives to the Chinese prisoner the advantage of being tried by a magistrate who understands his language, of being able himself to follow the proceedings, and of being independent of an interpreter. The proceedings will be

    773
    public, and the presence of an English interpreter will, no doubt, be secure when required.

    Norwich Cavalry Barracks.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERTo ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed at an early date to proceed with the new cavalry barracks at Norwich; and, if so, whether the barracks will be built upon the plans submitted by the Director of Barrack Construction and approval by the Army Council.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane. I fully appreciate the patriotic offer of the citizens of Norwich, and am anxious to meet their wishes to retain a cavalry regiment, if this can be done without prejudicing the organisation of the Army in future. Barrack policy must be sub servient to and dependent on genera policy, which I am now carefully con sidering, and I cannot assent to the expenditure of nearly £200,000 on new barracks at Norwich until I am in a position to arrive at a decision on the question of military policy involved.

    Payment of Election Expenses—Salaries to Members of Parliament.
    MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a measure to enable the payment of election expenses and a fair salary for attendance to Members of this House, payable from the Treasury; and whether he can state what is the existing practice and what are the payments in the British Colonies.
    (Answered by Sir Henry-Campbell Bannerman.) The matter is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government. The existing practice as to such payments in British Colonies is as follows:—Canada—(a) A session of more than thirty days. $2,500 for the session; (b) A session of thirty days or less. $20 for each day's attendance. 4–5 Edw. 7, c. 43, s. 2. Australia—£400 a year. (Imperial Act.) 63 and 64 Vic, c. 12, s. 48. New Zealand—£300 per annum. 4 Edw. 7, c. 24, s. 2. Tasmania—£100 per annum. 54 Vic, c. 20. West Australia—£200 per annum. 64 Vic, c. 32, s. 2.
    774
    South Australia—£200 per annum. Acts No. 399 of 1887 and No. 476 of 1890. Queensland—£300 per annum. 60 Vic. c. 5, s. 4 (1). New South Wales—£300 per annum. 2 Edw. 7, c. 32, s. 28. Victoria—£300 per annum. Act No. 1,075 of 1890, s. 126. Cape of Good Hope—(a) Members resident within fifteen miles from House of Parliament: One guinea for each day of attendance; (b) More than fifteen miles: One guinea remuneration, and 15s. allowance for personal expenses for every day of absence from home on his Parliamentary duties. Act No. 16 of 1888, ss. 2, 4–5. Natal—£1 daily travelling allowance in the cases of Members who reside three miles or more from the place of assembly. Act No. 2 of 1888, s. 1. See also 19 of 1887 and 14 of 1893, s. 41. Newfoundland—The payments are voted annually. In The Public Service Act, 1905 (c. 23, p. 31) provision is made for $8,300, the salaries of thirty-six members. The Journal of the Assembly for 1902 gives the rates as $300 and $200. The $8,300 is probably made up as follows: eleven Members resident in our parts, at $300, $3,300; twenty-five Members resident in St. John's, at $200, $5,000.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Port Defences.
    Mr. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the mine defences, formerly in charge of the War Department, for the defence of our mercantile ports, such as Liverpool, Hull, and other places, have been removed; and, if so, what system it is intended to adopt for the protection of these ports in their stead.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Answer to the first part of my Lon. friend's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part it is not desirable to make any statement.

    Congo Free State.
    SIR WILLIAM EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

    775
    Affairs if action is being taken by the British Government to check the slavery and atrocities alleged to be taking place in the Congo Free State and other African territories.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I can only repeat the Answer given last Wednesday; that Papers will shortly be laid with reference to the Congo State. Inquiry is being made as to when the Commission at Brussels is likely to report as to the best means of carrying out the reform recommended in Congo Administration.

    China and the Tibetan Treaty.
    SIR HENRY COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House of the present condition of the negotiations between the Government of India and the Government of China regarding the confirmation or modification of the agreement concluded in August, 1904, at Lhasa with the Tibetan authorities; and whether he is in a position to lay Papers on the subject before the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: As was stated on Thursday last, negotiations are proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government in regard to the terms of a Convention for the adhesion of China to the Convention concluded with Tibet in 1904. No statement can be made and Papers cannot be presented during the progress of the negotiations.

    Old Age Pensions.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately what annual sum would be required to provide a pension of 5s. per week for every person in the United Kingdom over the age of sixty-five years.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH Fifeshire,): The number of persons above sixty-five years of age enumerated in the 1901 Census was 2,018,716. To provide them
    776
    with a pension of 5s. a week would, therefore, require over £26,225,000.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate for the information of Members what has been done in regard to this Question in the Australian Colonies and New Zealand?
    MR. ASQUITH: I will consider that.

    Alcohol for Industrial Purposes.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce at an early date a Bill containing those clauses of the Revenue Bill of last session which were proposed in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the use of alcohol for industrial purposes.
    MR. ASQUITH: The matter is under consideration, and I will make a statement at a later date.

    Grants to Universities.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has undertaken to include in the Estimates for 1906–7 a sum of £20,000 for the building fund of the University College of North Wales, to which fund £61,000 have been subscribed locally; if so, whether any conditions have been attached to the proposed grant; and whether he will make provision in the Estimates for similar grants to the Universities and University Colleges of England in the same proportion to the local subscriptions.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have undertaken to ask Parliament to make a grant of £20,000 to the building fund of the College when the money is actually required for the scheme and subject to the condition that a similar sum has first been spent upon it from other sources. No part of this grant will have to be provided in the Estimates for 1906–7. Similar grants have already been made to the two other Welsh Colleges of like character. No such grants have in the past been made to University Colleges in England,

    777
    and, as the annual grants to these institutions were largely increased—as I think most properly increased—by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not, as at present advised, prepared to recommend a change of policy.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not in the least complain of the grant the right hon. Gentleman makes to Wales, Tout I shall call attention to the subject on the Estimates in order to secure an equivalent grant for English colleges.

    Exchequer Bonds.
    MR. ASHTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Exchequer bonds to be paid off on 18th April next were drawn on 6th February, but that notice of the numbers of the bonds so drawn was not published for about a week thereafter, and in face of the obvious inconvenience of this course, he can see his way to arrange that the numbers when drawn shall be at once published.
    MR. ASQUITH: In accordance with the Regulations published in the London Gazette of the 18th August last, the bonds were drawn in the presence of the Comptroller-General of the National Debt the Deputy-Governor of the Bank, and a representative of the Treasury. The list was sent to these gentlemen to be certified before being published in the Gazette. I agree that the drawn numbers should be published without any delay, and I will take steps to have this done in future, issuing a special Gazette if necessary for the purpose.

    Joint Stock Banks and Bank of England Notes.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that joint stock banks in Great Britain are entitled to refuse to negotiate notes of the Bank of England; and whether, in view of frequent inconvenience to the public, he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with it.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I am aware that the joint stock banks are not under legal obligation to cash notes of the Bank of England, and I do not think it would be possible to impose such an obligation upon them. A Bank of England note is legal tender, but it would be impossible to require a joint stock bank to keep a cash reserve to change all the Bank of England notes that might be presented to it.

    Political Refugees—Aliens Act.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. RAMSEY MACDONALD) I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the ease of Alexander Ouix, a Russian non-commissioned officer and social democrat, who was refused permission under The Aliens Act, 1905, to land at Harwich on the 12th instant, because he was not considered to have proved that he sought admission to this country solely to avoid prosecution on political grounds, although two companions gave evidence to his escape from Russia for these reasons; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, he will consider the amendment of the Act so that the right of political asylum may be maintained.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): I have caused special inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of this case. I am informed that the immigrant had only one companion, that they came by ship from Denmark, and that no statement to the effect suggested in the question was made to the immigration officer or the interpreter. In the written statements of particulars signed by the immigrants the occupation of both was given as "workers," and the last permanent place of abode of the immigrant whose name was given as Ouix was stated to be Copenhagen. Ouix did not appeal to the Board, but returned at once to Denmark. I am confident that the immigration officials are doing their utmost to administer the Act in accordance with the intentions of Parliament as regards political refugees.
    MR. CROOKS: Was this immigrant aware that he had a right of appeal?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: That fact appears on the papers.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: And is it not laid down in the regulations that both the immigrants and the masters of ships shall be informed that they have a right of appeal?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Yes.
    MR. CROOKS: In what language?
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: In the British language.
    MR. CROOKS: Oh! that accounts for it.

    Pentonville Prison—Governor's Salary.
    MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances was Major O. Davies, a half-pay Army officer, appointed the new Governor of Model Prison, Pentonville; what amount does he receive from the Army, and what is his salary as governor of this prison; and whether he will consider the desirability of appointing civilians to such posts.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Major Davies was appointed Governor of Pentonville Prison in the ordinary course of promotion, having been appointed to the Prison service in 1894, and having served with credit as Deputy Governor of Pentonville and Governor of four smaller prisons successively. He is on the retired list and draws an Army pension of £200, and his salary as Governor, which is reduced on account of his Army pension, is £624 16s. It is the practice already to "consider the desirability" of appointing civilians to the Prison service, and at present there are forty-one civilians in charge of prisons, and only twenty-nine naval or military officers.

    Laundry Workers.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    780
    Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories in which it is stated that 144,038 women and girls are working in laundries not regulated by the Factory Acts; and whether he proposes to take any steps to remedy their condition.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I have had before me the Report to which the hon. Member refers. I must point out, however, that it is not quite correct to say that 144,038 women and girls are working in "unregulated laundries." The heading in the census returns from which the figure in the question is obtained is "laundry and washing service" and out of the 122,463 women in England and Wales alone who are engaged in this service but are not under the Factory Act over 73,000 are returned as "working at home." The question of legislation for unregulated laundries, i.e., laundries where not more than two persons from outside are employed, will have my careful consideration.
    MR. H. J. TENNANTasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give a Return showing the number of persons engaged in regulated and unregulated laundries.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEasked for notice.

    Lambeth Hairdressers and Early Closing.
    MR. S. COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet issued the Early Closing Order applied for by the Lambeth Borough Council applying to the hairdressers' trade in the borough of Lambeth; if not, will he state when it is his intention to do so.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I have been in communication with the Borough Council in this matter and have communicated to the Town Clerk my provisional approval of a draft Order applying to the hairdressers' trade; but the Order as finally made has not yet been submitted to me for confirmation.

    The New Russian Tariff.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a new Russian tariff about to be enforced increasing still further the duties against British goods, now averaging some 131 per cent. ad valorem; and if His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon): Representations as to the probable effect of the new Russian tariff on British export trade have been addressed to the Russian Government.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the case that the new Russian tariff will fall not merely on British goods but on the goods of all foreign countries?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I believe that is so.

    The Flax Industry.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of persons employed in the flax industry in the United Kingdom for the year 1900 and subsequent years.
    The hon. Member had also the following Questions on the Paper:—
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the decrease per cent. in the number of flax-spinning factories and the number of spindles in the United Kingdom since the year 1870; what has been the increase per cent. of the importation of flax yarns into the United Kingdom from abroad during the same period; and what has been the loss of employment to British and Irish workpeople involved in these changes.
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in England the flax spinning industry has become nearly extinct, that in Scotland it has been reduced more than one-half during the past thirty years, and that in Ireland 200,000 spindles have been stopped
    782
    since 1870; whether he has any official information showing that this decline is due to the high tariffs on British goods imposed by foreign countries; and whether he proposes to take any steps to arrest the further decay of this industry?
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the United States the duty on plain linens imported is 35 per cent., while on manufactured and finished handkerchiefs the duty is 60 per cent., and if embroidered, 70 to 80 per cent.; whether he is aware that the effect of this discrimination has been to transfer works for hemstitching and finishing handkerchiefs from the North of Ireland to the United States; whether he is able to state the extent to which Irish labour has been displaced through the operation of these duties; and whether he has any remedy to suggest for this loss of an industry?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In 1901 there were 96,788 persons employed in flax factories in the United Kingdom. No figures are available for later years or for 1900. Since 1870 the number of flax spinning factories has fallen from 283 to 127 and the total spindles from 1,549,547 to 1,075,855. A Report issued by the Board of Trade in 1898 (Cd. 8794) indicates that Yorkshire was formerly an important seat of the flax industry, which has now been displaced largely owing to the growing demand or labour in better paid industries, such as woollen, worsted, and mining. In Scotland the number of spindles in the flax trade has declined by nearly one half since 1870, its place being taken by jute. The number of flax and jute spindles in Scotland has increased by 5 per cent. since 1870. In Ireland the decline of spindles in the flax trade since 1870 was only one quarter of that stated in the Question. Concurrently with the decline in flax spinning there has been in increase in the better paid trade of linen weaving, the number of power looms in the United Kingdom having increased since 1870 from 35,301 to 54,440. The change from spinning to weaving has been accompanied by a great increase in the imports of flax

    783
    yarns (mainly coarse) which have risen in value from £54,000 in 1870 to £769,000 in 1905. The value of our exports, however (which consist of the finer yarns) amounted to £928,070 in 1905, and their level has been practically maintained for the last twenty years. There seems no reason to believe that the operation of foreign tariffs on yarns has been the principal cause of the changes which have taken place in this industry. The United States duties on linen manufactures are not correctly stated in the Question, but it is a fact that the difference between the American duties on plain linens and on finished and embroidered handkerchiefs has operated adversely to our export of the latter articles. Our total exports of linen manufactures have, however, been fully maintained during the past twenty years. No estimate of the effect on British and Irish labour of the importation of flax yarns or the operation of the American tariff on particular classes of manufactures would be of any value which did not take into account the broad changes which have taken place both in the industry as a whole and also in kindred trades.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cultivation of flax in the north of Ireland has decreased by 75 per cent. in about thirty years?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE. I believe that is the case.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the fact that no Protectionist countries have succeeded in gaining any reduction in the American linen duties?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is so, I believe.

    Foreign Ships in British Ports—Life Saving Regulations.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if Foreign ships in British ports are exempt from any of the regulations in force as regards British ships for the safety of life; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any steps to deprive Foreign vessels of this preference in British waters.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The question to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was dealt with by a Select Committee last Session; and a Bill is being prepared to carry into effect, among other matters, the recommendation of that Committee.

    Coupling Accidents to Railway Servants.
    BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively, which occurred to railwaymen engaged in coupling or uncoupling operations during the year 1905.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: So far as can be stated at present, there were, during 1905, twelve fatal and 523 non-fatal accidents to railway servants while engaged in coupling or uncoupling operations. These figures may be subject to some slight alterations before the Returns are published, but are substantially correct.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: Are any experiments being made with regard to automatic couplings and what progress has been made?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; the matter is being gone into at the present moment.

    Use of Shunting Poles on Railways.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents, respectively, which occurred to railway-men due to using or carrying about shunting poles not actually engaged in coupling or uncoupling operations during the year 1905.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: In addition to ten cases of accident to railway servants through the improper use of coupling poles as brakesticks, there appear to have been during the year 1905, twenty-one accidents, fortunately none of them fatal, due to the fact that a coupling pole was being used or carried, apart from accidents occurring in the actual operation of coupling or uncoupling.

    Foreigners and Pilotage Certificates.
    MR. H. H. MARKS: I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of foreign subjects who hold pilotage certificates enabling them to pilot their vessels in or out of British ports, and the nationality of the holders of such certificates; and whether foreigners to whom such certificates are granted are subjected to the condition imposed upon British subjects in the London pilotage district, viz., that they shall furnish proof that they are well affected towards His Majesty the King and His Government.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the 31st March last, certificates enabling their holders to pilot in British compulsory pilotage waters the vessels of which they were masters or mates, were held by eighty-five foreign subjects, viz., two Belgians, three Danes, forty-one Dutchmen, thirteen Frenchmen, ten Germans, three Russians and thirteen Swedes. Of these eighty-five certificates, seventy-one had been issued by the Trinity House, who are the pilotage authority for the London district, and I am informed by them that the condition referred to by the hon. Member is not imposed upon either British or foreign candidates for such certificates. Of the other fourteen cases I have no definite information. I am informed that the condition referred to is in accordance with long-standing custom, imposed by the Trinity House upon all candidates for pilot's licences, which are quite distinct from the pilotage certificates granted to masters and mates.

    Fees under the Trade Marks Act.
    MR. G. CROYDON MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the fees prescribed in the new rules made by the Board of Trade for regulating the practice under the Trade Marks Act, 1905, which comes into operation on the 1st April, are greatly in excess of those charged under the old Act; whether he is aware that under such new rules for a fee of 5s. the Registrar of the Trade Marks Branch of the Patent Office is required to make an examination or
    786
    search of the existing registered trade marks and arrive at a decision as to accepting or rejecting an application to register a new trade mark; yet, if he is asked to state how and why he thus arrived at such a decision, the fee payable is £2, or eight times the amount charged for doing the work involved for enabling the decision to be arrived at; and whether any revision of such scale of fees will be made prior to the 1st April.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The rules to which the hon. Member refers are draft rules, and are subject to alteration. The Board of Trade are in communication with the Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, and other bodies with a view of obtaining the fullest information as to the opinions of those interested in the proposed rules, and they have arranged that a conference, to which the principal Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute, and other bodies have been invited to send representatives, should shortly take place at the Board of Trade to discuss the rules and schedules of fees before they are finally issued. I must, however, remind the hon. Member that the question of the fees to be charged does not rest wholly with the Board of Trade, as the sanction of the Treasury is required by the Act.

    The Telephone Company's Employees— Conditions of Transfer to Government Service.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state when the Bill is to be introduced which was promised by his predecessor in the last Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Telephone Transfer Committee anent the conditions under which the employees of the present Telephone Company are to be transferred to the service of the Post Office?
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): As the staff of the National Telephone Company will not be taken over by the Post Office until the 1st January, 1912, it is not intended to introduce the necessary Bill at present or until the

    787
    conditions of the transfer of the Company's system, which will require statutory authority, can be more exactly foreseen than at present.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is it intended to introduce any Bill embodying these conditions?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I take it it will be necessary to bring in a Bill before 1912 on which this question can be raised.

    Drumlish Postal Arrangements.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of directing that the present mid-day delivery of letters from Longford to Leitrim Crossroads be continued to Drumlish, only two miles further on, by bicycle if necessary.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A report on the subject has been called for, and on its receipt I shall be glad to consider the question of affording the improvement in the service to Drumlish desired by the hon. Member.

    The Bradford Report.
    SIR WILLIAM EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he proposes to carry out forthwith the recommendations of the Bradford Commission.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, Sir. The present Government have no responsibility nor obligation in regard to the Bradford Committee.

    The Select Committee on Post Office Wages.
    MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to include rural sub-postmasters (un-established) and rural postmen in the inquiry to be held into the pay and conditions of service of postal employees.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, Sir.

    Redistribution.
    Mr. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local
    788
    Government Board whether the Report of the Redistribution Committee appointed by his predecessor last summer is of a confidential nature; and, if not, can he say whether the Committee reported in favour of forming the municipal borough of Merthyr Tydvil into a separate and single member constituency; and will the expenses incurred by the Committee come out of the public purse, and be included in the Supplementary Estimates.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The Committee were appointed to obtain information for the guidance of the late Government in framing a Scheme for the Redistribution of seats at Parliamentary Elections. The Report was confidential, and I am unable to give any information as to its contents. The expenses of the Committee have been defrayed out of the Vote for Temporary Commissions, and will be included in a Supplementary Estimate in respect of that Vote.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Then what does the British taxpayer get for his money?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: That may transpire on the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of calling on those who ordered the inquiry and got the confidential Report to pay the cost?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I think under the circumstances it was reasonable and discreet that the document should be made confidential. Under similar circumstances I should ask that it be so regarded. It was in the public interest.
    MR. CLANCY: How do we know that?

    London University and the School of the Mines.
    SIR WILLIAM COLLINS (St. Pancras, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what action he proposes to take on the Report of the

    789
    Departmental Committee on the Royal College of Science and the School of Mines; and whether any re-organisation of the University of London is contemplated, with a view to the association with it of the Royal College of Science and the School of Mines.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Report of the Departmental Committed is receiving the careful consideration of the Board; they are awaiting a communication from the Senate of London University on the subject. I am afraid I cannot make any more definite statement for the present.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Senate of the University of London will have ample opportunity of expressing their views before a definite decision is arrived at?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am awaiting a communication from the Senate of that body, and it shall have all the attention it deserves.

    The Proposed Hammersmith Exhibition.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances attaching to a long lease of eighty-four acres of land recently granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at Shepherd's Bush for the purpose of an exhibition, and to the absence from the lease of any covenant prohibiting the lessee from applying for a licence to sell beer, wine, or spirits thereon; whether he is aware that licences have been applied for to sell such liquors on forty-four places on the land; And whether he is in a position to give on behalf of the Commissioners, any explanation as to the omission from the lease of any such condition, and an assurance that in future all leases granted by them shall contain cither a restrictive or prohibitive covenant in connection with such applications.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: May I be allowed to answer
    790
    this Question? The facts relating to this letting were given to the hon. Member in answer to his Question on the same matter in May last in the following terms: "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have agreed to let an area of about eighty-four acres of land at Hammersmith for a long term of years for the purpose of an exhibition similar to that at Earl's Court or at the Crystal Palace. As regards the lands used for exhibition purposes, the Commissioners do not think it practicable to prohibit any application by the lessee for licences for the sale thereon of wine, beer, and spirits in connection with the supply of refreshments. The recent application to the licensing justices to which the Question refers was made by the intending lessee, and the Commissioners had no knowledge that any application was about to be made or as to the number of places in which it would be asked that liquors might be sold." In addition, I am now able to say that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have received notice that a fresh application will be made by the lessee to the licensing magistrates in the present month, and it is the Commissioners' intention to be then represented. The Commissioners are informed that the application will be for a licence in respect of eleven places only within the Exhibition and grounds. With regard to the last part of the Question, it is the policy of the Commissioners to limit the number of licences on their building estates in accordance with the real needs of the neighbourhoods, but within that limit they deal with any application of their lessees for permission to acquire a licence as they deem most reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

    Illegal Trawling in the Firth of Forth.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to complaints made to the Fishery Board for Scotland of the recent presence of certain trawling vessels within the prohibited area of the Firth of Forth oil the Anstruther and Cellardyke coasts; and if he can give an assurance that preventive measures will promptly be taken against any

    791
    infraction of the bye-laws of the Fishery Board.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Instructions have been given that every effort should be made to put a stop to the illegal trawling complained of by the hon. Member.

    Local Taxation in Scotland.
    MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Local Government Board to make inquiry into the incidence of local taxation in Harris, North and South Uist, and Barra, has been received; if it is to be published, and what the Government proposes to do to relieve those parishes of the excessive taxation they bear.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The Report referred to by the hon. Member is at present under consideration, and it has been thought expedient to extend the inquiry to the Lews, where the financial conditions are analagous. Until that inquiry is concluded the question of publication, as well as of the necessity for Government relief, cannot be decided.

    Edinburgh School Board, and the Training of Teachers.
    MR. A. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution adopted by the Edinburgh School Board disapproving of the Draft Resolutions recently issued by the Scottish Education Department for the training of teachers in Scotland in respect that the said Draft Resolutions propose to create a new method of training under non-representative authorities without full security that candidates will receive adequate practical training, and that the children of parents in humble circumstances will have obstacles placed in their way to the teaching profession; whether he can state when the Draft Resolutions are likely to be considered by the Department; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House, and in particular to the Scottish Members, for a full discussion of the subject before the Draft is definitely
    792
    put into a Minute and laid upon the Table.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the resolution adopted by the Edinburgh School Board. I am also aware that equally important educational authorities such as the School Boards of Glasgow and Govan have approved of the Draft Regulations. The Draft Regulations will be further considered by the Department when the reports of the Provincial Committees have been received. But representations received from other educational bodies will also be considered, and in order that full opportunity may be given to School Boards and others to make themselves acquainted with the scope of the proposals, the Draft Regulations have been put on sale. No announcement as to subsequent action can be made till the Regulations have been considered by the Department in the light of the reports of the Provincial Committees and of other representations received.

    Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the Fishery Board for Scotland, recently re-appointed by him, only one representative out of seven belongs to the West of Scotland; whether he is aware that the fish trade of Glasgow and the fishermen of the West of Scotland are unanimous that they should have further representation on the Board; and whether, under such circumstances, he is prepared to increase the number on the Board so as to give Glasgow and the West of Scotland further representation there.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Strictly speaking, the representative element upon the Fishery Board consists of four members; excluding the Chairman, the legal member, and the scientific member, in regard to whose appointment local representative qualifications cannot be the governing consideration. It is the case that of those four members, only one belongs to the West of Scotland, and he belongs to the Clyde. Representations did reach me not only in favour of more than one candidate for membership of the Fishery Board as qualified to

    793
    represent the Clyde, but also in favour of candidates qualified to represent other districts of Scotland, and I greatly regret that it was not possible for me in re-appointing the Fishery Board to meet their views. The number of members forming the Board is fixed by statute, and can only be altered by legislation. The wide distribution of the fishing population in Scotland makes it impossible that all the fishery districts shall be directly represented upon the Board.

    Granard Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the Granard, County Longford, estate, which has been sold under the Ashbourne Act to the tenants, four tenants have been deprived of turbary, to which on the face of their vesting orders they were entitled; and whether he will call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to these cases with a view to securing proper treatment for them.
    THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The Granard estates were sold under the Land Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1891, not under the Act of 1903. Some of the tenants were given by their vesting orders a right to cut turf for consumption, but not for sale, on parts of certain bogs in the possession of the vendor In other cases, certain bogs were conveyed to trustees by trust deeds, to which the Land Commission were not parties, for the purpose of providing turbary for the tenant purchasers therein named, and these deeds conferred on the trustees very ample powers for making rules and regulations as to these turbary rights. I am not aware that any of the tenant purchasers have been deprived of any turbary rights to which they were entitled either under their vesting orders or these turbary deeds. In reply to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I beg to say that I have called the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the matter, and I am informed by them that they have no power to intervene in the matter as suggested. Any tenant purchaser who is deprived of
    794
    his rights can obtain redress by action either against the owner of the bog or the trustees under the turbary deeds.

    Flax Cultivation in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that during the five years 1900–4 the average acreage under flax in Ireland was only 48,000, and the estimated produce was returned at 10,533 tons, whereas in 1880–4 the average acreage was 121,000 and the estimated produce 21,688 tons; and what measures are being adopted by the Department of Agriculture to encourage the cultivation of flax, particularly in Ulster, where the conditions are the most suitable for the growth of this crop.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The figures are as stated, but it should be observed that they indicate an increased production per acre. In the period 1880–4 the average yield of flax per acre was 28¾ stones, while in the later period it was 34¾ stones. Since 1901 the Department, with the assistance of an Ulster Advisory Committee, have adopted a scheme for encouraging improved cultivation of flax. The means taken to achieve this end include experiments in the manuring and manipulation of flax, and with different varieties of seed; the offering of prizes for well scutched flax and for growing flax; assistance in the formation of co-operative flax growing and scutching societies; the dissemination of information as to the quality of Dutch and Russian flax seed available each year for sowing; instruction in improved methods of dealing with the crop; measures for bringing the Irish flax grower into direct contact with the methods of their competitors in Belgium; improvement of marketing facilities; and other measures.
    MR. LONSDALEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the expediency of offering a small bonus to cultivators in the North of Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: That Question raises large issues. Of course any suggestion made with a view of encouraging the cultivator will have careful consideration.

    Irish School Grants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the reduction in the amount of the school grants paid to teachers under the intermediate education system, Ireland, for the year 1905; is he aware that the grants paid for each pass in junior grade fell from £8 3s. 6d. per pupil to £5 14s., in middle grade from £16 7s. to £11 8s., and in senior from £24 10s. 6d. to £17 2s., and showed proportionate reductions in each grade for passes with honour; and whether, in view of the promised increase in the Exchequer grants in aid of secondary education in England, steps will be taken for securing the interests of teachers connected with secondary education in Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: The facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. The reduction in the amount of the grants was due mainly to the increase in the numbers of students in the pass and honours lists, and in a less degree to a decrease in the amount received by the Intermediate Education Board from the Local Taxation Account. The matter referred to in the last part of the Question will not escape my attention, and I may add that the entire system upon which grants for Intermediate Education are made in Ireland appears to me to require serious consideration.

    Irish Fisheries
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) has been again called to the damage done to the mackerel fisheries of the south and south-west coasts of Ireland by fleets of boats engaged in fishing for herrings during such season as involves the capture of quantities of immature mackerel; and, in view of the inquiry of 1892, and the report of the fishery inspectors in 1893, which recommended, for the protection of the mackerel fishery, that a close season for herrings should be established from Poer Head to Mizen Head from 1st April to 16th May in each year, will the Department take steps to
    796
    preserve a great Irish industry from extinction.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department held an inquiry into this matter at Kinsale in October last, and, as a result, a bye law intended to be of an experimental character was prepared, providing a close time for the taking of herrings in the district of Kinsale. The bye-law has not been proceeded with, because amongst other reasons, the question of extending the sphere of its operations eastward, towards Queenstown and Bally-cotton, has been raised; and the Department intend to hold inquiries at those places during the month of May next, whereupon a decision upon the whole case will be arrived at.

    Dromagh Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have any further communication to make in regard to the evicted tenants J. Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Mary Cronin, on the estate of Mr. N. N. Leader, Rosnalee, Dromagh, county Cork; and whether, as the originating application, which included these tenants with the sanction of the landlord, was served in July, 1905, immediate steps will be taken to reinstate them in readiness for spring agricultural work; and further, if Mr. Leader, who has a quantity of untenanted land in his possession, expresses his willingness to sell the same, or a portion thereof, to the Commissioners at a reasonable price, will that body inquire into the question of purchase at an early opportunity with a view to resale of the lands to other evicted tenants of the neighbourhood, to deserving labourers and others entitled under the Land Act of 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: In the Originating Application in respect of the sale of this estate, which was lodged in June, 1905, the former holding of J. Fitzpatrick is set out as untenanted land which the vendor contemplates selling as parcels; and the former holding of Mary Cronin is set out as part of the vendor's demesne, and other land which he proposes to sell to, and repurchase from, the Commissioners. The Commissioners hope soon

    797
    to be able to make inquiries into the case of these and other evicted tenants in the county Cork.

    Kerry County Council and the Irish Land Commissioners.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Kerry County Council a resolution protesting against the unfairness and partiality of many of the present body of Land Commissioners, and asking that competent and impartial men be appointed; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the resolution referred to, but there is no evidence before me to show that, alleged, many of the present body are open to the charge of unfairness and partiality. When appointments come to be made or renewed, the fitness of al candidates will be carefully considered.

    Irish Congested Districts—Compulsory Purchase.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Kerry County Council a resolution appealing to the Government to so amend the Land Act as to give power to the Congested Districts Board to purchase compulsory estates within the congested districts; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have seen a resolution to the effect stated, which was passed by the Kerry County Council in January, 1905. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject of the resolution.

    Evicted Tenants in South Cork.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that no evicted tenant has yet been reinstated in South Cork, steps will immediately be taken to induce the Estates Commissioners to send down an inspector to that constituency to make inquiries and report on the best means for reinstating the evicted tenants in their former holdings.
    MR. BRYCE: Inquiries as to all the evicted tenants in county Cork are being prosecuted by the Commissioners as rapidly as possible. The Commissioners understand that some sixteen evicted tenants have recently been reinstated and that negotiations for reinstatement are proceeding in other cases.

    Ballykinley Farm, County Cork.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners will refuse to sanction an advance for the purchase of Ballykinley farm, county Cork (forming the estate of Mr. Palms Spread Morgan, a lunatic), by Captain Jonathan Morgan, remainder man and heir in succession, and will take such steps as may be in their power to bring about the reinstatement of the former tenant, Mr. James J. Greene, evicted in 1889, and who now seeks to become the purchaser of his old holding under the provisions of The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: An agreement for the purchase of the holding in question by Captain Jonathan Morgan, described as holding under a Court lease, dated December, 1904, was lodged with the Estates Commissioners on the 30th January, 1906. The Commissioners will inquire fully into the circumstances before sanctioning the advance.

    Labourers' Cottages in the Mitchelstown Union.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reason for the refusal of the Local Government Board to sanction a reduction of the rents of labourers' cottages in Mitchelstown union from 1s. to 9d. per week, having regard to the fact that this reduction was passed unanimously by the rural district council, and that the rents of labourers' cottages in the adjacent union of Fermoy are only 7½d. per week; and whether, in view of the necessities of the labourers in the district, he Local Government Board will re-consider the matter and sanction the reduction.
    MR. BRYCE: The sanction of the Local Government Board is not necessary in this matter. The Mitchelstown No. 1 Rural District Council recently asked the Board to sanction the proposed reduction of the rents from 1s. to 9d. a week, but the Board replied that the council must act on their own responsibility and be prepared to satisfy the auditor as to the propriety of their action. If the council have not carried the proposal into effect, it is probable that they fear they cannot, as trustees of the ratepayers, justify the reduction of the rents hitherto charged, seeing that the cottages already entail a heavy burden on the ratepayers.

    Mr. Mathew J. Byrne.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that Mr. Matthew J. Byrne was recently employed as temporary horticulturist by the County of Waterford Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, but that the Department refused to sanction his further employment; (2) whether, seeing that the curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, reported to the Department that he was perfectly satisfied with Mr. Byrne's technical knowledge of the practical details of gardening and horticultural matters about March, 1905, he will explain why Mr. Byrne was subsequently tested again; (3) whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne's experience has been acquired, not only in the Colonies and the United States, but at the Athy Model Farm and Royal Albert Institute, Glasnevin; (4) that the County Waterford Committee, in December, 1905, gave him a testimonial for his energy and attention to his duties during the six months he had been employed by them, and up to the time at which the Department declined to sanction his permanent appointment; (5) whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne was declared to have failed to pass the second test on the ground that he was unaware of the scientific names of three weeds, one of them being ordinary Scotch grass; (6) and will he say whether Sir Horace Plunkett was aware, when this decision was given, that Mr. Byrne had been
    800
    connected with the National Registration Association in South Dublin, in which he was an elector.
    MR. BRYCE: (1) The Answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. (2) Mr. Byrne was examined a second time, because the Department had promised the Waterford County Committee to make a second test, and because they were not satisfied that he possessed the necessary qualifications. The examiner in the first test had expressed a qualified opinion as to Mr. Byrne's technical knowledge. (3) The Department do not doubt the statement as to Mr. Byrne's previous experience. (4) The Waterford County Committee, at Mr. Byrne's request, gave him a testimonial as to his attention to work, but it is not recorded that the testimonial contained any reference to his fitness. (5) It is not the case that Mr. Byrne was rejected because of his ignorance of the scientific name of weeds. His experience of Irish horticulture had been gained forty years ago before he went abroad. (6) The Answer to the last inquiry is in the negative.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to transfer the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the county councils.
    MR. BRYCE: No, Sir.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Has the matter been under the consideration of the Government?
    MR. BRYCE: My Answer is in the negative.
    MR. DELANY: Better give the police over to the control of the Orange lodges.

    Bellacolla Post Office.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the post office at Ballacolla, Queen's County, is situated on licensed premises; and, if so, is such in accordance with the Post Office Regulations; and what steps he proposes taking in the matter.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The sub-postmaster of Ballacolla, who was appointed in 1887, holds a licence, but the part of the premises used for the post office has a separate entrance, and is completely cut off from the public house. I am informed that the work is carried on in a satisfactory manner. There is a general rule that post offices are not to be situated on licensed premises, but it is sometimes necessary to make exceptions to this rule, and in the circumstances described I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. SLOAN: Have any inquiries been made with a view to securing more suitable premises?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not made any with regard to this particular case.

    Rules of Procedure.
    MR. CORRIE GRANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that 493 Members balloted on Wednesday last; and whether as only a small percentage of Bills introduced by unofficial Members can, under present circumstances, receive even a Second Reading discussion, he will bring forward proposals for amending the Rules of Procedure?
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intends to deal this session with an alteration of the Rules of Procedure of the House; and, if so, in what form such alterations will be submitted?
    MR. ASQUITH: My right hon. friend had intended to give notice to-day that he would move on an early date for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Rules of Procedure, but unfortunately he is confined to the house by a cold.

    Traffic in the Metropolis.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will favourably consider the introduction of a Bill this session to give
    802
    effect to the Report of the Royal Commission, who for the past three years have investigated the question of traffic of the Metropolis; such Bill to provide for the creation of a Traffic Board and other administrative machinery recommended by the Commission?
    MR. ASQUITH: His Majesty's Government has not as yet had time to consider the recommendation contained in this very voluminous Report, and it is quite impossible to give any undertaking as to the introduction of legislation during the present session.

    Colonial Representation in Foreign Courts.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any clause will be inserted in the Constitution of the Transvaal Colony to prevent the responsible Government from sending accredited representatives direct to Foreign Powers?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir, there is no need for such a clause. British diplomatic representatives in foreign countries are accredited by His Majesty and not by any Colonial Government.

    Foreign Office Questions.
    EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any announcement to make with regard to the future arrangements for answering Questions dealing with foreign affairs.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Perhaps the House will allow me to make my statement a little general, with regard both to answering Questions and to debate. It does require some adjustment and some indulgence on the part of the House to enable me to combine with attendance in the House the work of the Foreign Office. But I have never felt that it was in the interests of the House itself not to give some latitude of that kind, because I think it is in the interests of the House that it should not accept the doctrine that it is impossible for the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be a Member of the House of Commons. I hope that what I now ask the House to accept will leave to it at least as much freedom of

    803
    effective discussion as it has been the practice for the House to have in recent years. First of all, I would ask the House to bear in mind that both the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister are now in the House of Commons. That, of course, strengthens the House in regard to debate, and as regards debates on Foreign Office questions I shall, of course, so arrange the work of the Office that I shall be always in the House when any foreign question is under discussion. I think it is possible to do that, because debates on foreign affairs are not of excessive frequency, and when they do take place they do not last for more than a day or two days without intermission. With regard to Questions, I do not think it is possible, at any rate without strain and inconvenience, for me to be present in the House on four days every week; and what I would ask the House to accept is an arrangement by which I shall be present on two days in the week. I shall be present in the House, for instance, next Thursday, which, in addition to this day, will be two days this week, and in subsequent weeks I shall be present on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays and Wednesdays I would ask the House to accept Answers from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, if it is more convenient to Members to put Questions on foreign affairs on those days. As to supplementary Questions, the late Government asked the House to accept at one time a total restriction, and latterly a very considerable restriction, on such Questions. I assume that they did that because inconvenience had arisen owing to the giving of supplementary Answers. I am quite willing to revert to the original practice of not restricting supplementary Questions so far as I am myself concerned; but the House must bear in mind that a certain risk attaches to supplementary Answers, which are received abroad without full understanding of the circumstances under which they are given, and are scrutinised as considered statements with a deliberate intention behind them. I must therefore ask the House for an equal discretion, so far as I am concerned, as to answering these Questions. I hope the House will accept that arrangement,
    804
    and will see that under it the liberty of the House will not be in any way interfered with in regard to Foreign Office questions.
    EARL PERCY: May I express our thanks for the courtesy with which the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to meet the wishes of the House? The arrangement he now proposes is, I think, the best that could be arrived at under the circumstances. I will only venture to express the hope that the rule as to supplementary Questions not being addressed to the Secretary to the Local Government Board in the absence of the Secretary of State may not be too rigidly adhered to. Something which fell from the Prime Minister the other clay seemed to imply that I quarrelled with the arrangement which enabled the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to continue to sit in this House. That was very far from my intention. What I had in my mind was the arrangement by which, when last a Foreign Secretary sat in this House his Under-Secretary sat here also. No one would regret more than myself the withdrawal of the right hon. Gentleman from this House, and I hope he will long continue to take part in our debates.

  NEW BILLS.
    LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854," presented by Mr. McCrae; supported by Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. John Dewar, and Mr. Robert Wallace; to be read a second time upon Friday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
    SALE OF COKE BILL.
    "To amend the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, respecting the Sale of Coke," presented by Mr. Rose; supported by Mr. Buckmaster, Mr. Beck, and Mr. Montagu; to be read a second time upon Friday, 11th May, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
    WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
    "To continue the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1904," presented by Mr. Buxton; supported by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
    LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To give the ratepayers a direct Veto on the Liquor Traffic in their respective areas in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; supported by Mr. A. W. Black, Mr. Crombie, Mr. John Hope, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Robert Wallace, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
    PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL.
    "To give further facilities for the acquisition of Sites for Places of Worship," presented by Mr. Perks; supported by Mr. McArthur and Mr. Broadhurst; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
    TUBEBCULOSIS (ANIMALS) PREVENTION AND COMPENSATION BILL.
    "To provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of animals condemned after slaughter and destroyed by order of a magistrate on account of tuberculosis, and to assist in the provention of tuberculosis," presented by Mr. Field; supported by Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Roche, Mr. Condon, Mr. Rutherford, Sir Carne Rasch, Mr. Jones, Mr. Skackleton, Mr. Schwann, and Mr. MacIver; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

    CLOSURING THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to ask a Question about the conduct of the business of the House. In the absence of the Prime Minister, I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the debate on the Address. The Prime Minister has
    given notice to suspend the twelve o'clock rule to-night. At this early period of the session that constitutes a record. I assume it is not intended to keep us up late. On the Address only two Amendments have been dealt with, and there are a number still down on the Paper, some of which are of special importance. I regard as of special importance those standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney and also the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton. I have no idea how long the first Amendment dealing with Indian administration will last, but, supposing with every good will on all sides of the House, we are unable to complete the debate by twelve o'clock, I hope it is not the intention of the Government to close the Address prematurely.
    MR. ASQUITH: It is certainly the intention of the Government to ask the House to come to a conclusion on the Address to-night. The Government, having carefully considered the character of the various Amendments down on the Paper, and the amount of time which might fairly be devoted to each one, have come to the conclusion that every topic will have an opportunity of being adequately discussed, and it is certainly their intention to ask the House to conclude the debate to-night. Under no other conditions can the necessary financial business be completed by March 31st.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: After that statement, we shall oppose both Government Resolutions.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the King's Speech (Motion for an Address), if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    The House divided:—Ayes, 343; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 3.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N.E)

    Allen, Percy

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Adkins, W. Ryland

    Ambrose, Robert

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jenkins, J.

    Baring, Codfrey(Isle of Wight)

    Dewar, John A. (Invernes-sh.)

    Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

    Barker, John

    Dickinson, WH(St. Pancras, N.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Dilke, Rt. Hyn. Sir Charles

    Jordon, Jeremiah

    Barnard, E. B.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Beale, W. P.

    Duffy, William J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Beauchamp, E.

    Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

    Kilbride, Denis

    Beaumont, Hubert( Eastbourne

    Dunn, A. Edward, (Camborne)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

    Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Beck, A. G.

    Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

    Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

    Bell, Richard

    Elibank, Master of

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

    Lambert, George

    Belloc, Hiliare Joseph PeterR.

    Erskine, David C.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Benn, W(T'w'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

    Essex, R. W.

    Lea, HughCecil(St. Pancras, E.)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Evans, Samuel T.

    Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Eve, Harry Trelawny

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

    Blake, Edward

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Levy, Maurice

    Boland, John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

    Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lough, Thomas

    Brace, William

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Lundon, W.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Branch, James

    Field, William

    Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

    Brocklehurst, W. D.

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Brooke, Stopford

    Findlay, Alexander

    MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal, E

    Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Callum, John M.

    Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    M'Crae, George

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Killop, W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Furness, Sir Christopher

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

    Burnyeat, J. D. W.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ginnell, L.

    Maddison, Frederick

    Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

    Gladstone, Rt. HnHerbertJohn

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Glendinning, R. G.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cairns, Thomas

    Glover, Thomas

    Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

    Caldwell, James

    Gooch, George Peabody

    Marnham, F. J.

    Cameron, Robert

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Massie, J.

    Causton, Rt. HnRichardKnight

    Grove, Archibald

    Meehan, Patrick, A.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Menzies, Walter

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Gulland, John W.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Molteno, Percy Alfred

    Cherry, R. R.

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza-

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Halpin, J.

    Montagu, E. S.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hammond, John

    Mooney, J. J.

    Clarke, C. Goddard(Peckham)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil

    Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

    Clough, W.

    Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John

    Coats, SirT. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morrell, Philip

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Moss, Samuel

    Collins, SirWmJ(S. Pancras, W

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Murnaghan, George

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Murphy, John

    Cooper, G. J.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Myer, Horatio

    Corbett, C.H(Sussex, E. Grin'td

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Napier, T. P.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Henry, Charles

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nicholson, CharlesN(Doncast'r

    Cox, Harold

    Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Norman, Henry

    Cremer, William Randall

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Crombie, John William

    Hogan, Michael

    Nuttall, Harry

    Crooks, William

    Hope, WBateman(S'merset, N.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cullinan, J.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

    Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan)

    Hyde, Clarendon

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Idris, T. H. W.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Davis, W. Howell, (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Delany, William

    Jackson, R. S.

    O'Dowd, John

    Devlin, CharlesRamsay(G'lw'y

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Grady, J.

    808

    809

    O'Hare, Patrick

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Thompson, J.WH(Somerset, E.

    O'Malley, William

    Rowlands, J.

    Tillett, Louis John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Russell, T. W.

    Tomkinson, James

    O'Shee, James John

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Torrance, A. M.

    Partington, Oswald

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Toulmin, George

    Paul, Herbert

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Trevelyan, Charles, Philips

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Schwann, Charles D (Hyde)

    Verney, F. W.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Schwann, C.E. (Manchester, N.)

    Vivian, Henry

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    Perks, Robert William

    Sears, J. E.

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Philpps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Walsh, Stephen

    Philipps, J Wynford (Pembroke

    Seely, Major J. B.

    Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Shaw, Charles, Edw. (Stafford)

    Ward, W.Dudley (S'thampton

    Pollard, Dr.

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

    Wardle, George J.

    Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Radford, G. H.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    White, J. D, (Dumbartonshire)

    Reddy, M.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Spicer, Albert

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Rees, J. D.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

    Richards, Thomas(W.M'nm'th

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'tn

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Wilson, J.W(Worcestersh., N.)

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

    Robartes, Hn. T.C.A.(Bodmin)

    Strauss, B. A. (Abingdon)

    Wilson, W.T.(Westhoughton)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Stuart, James (Sunderland)

    Wodehouse, Lord( Norfolk, Mid.

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Woodhouse, SirJ. T(Huddersf'd

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Young, Samuel

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Robertson, SirG. Scott(Bradf'rd

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Robinson, S.

    Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

    George Whiteley and Mr. J.

    Robson, Sir W. Snowdon

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    A. Pease.

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

    NOES.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fell, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Forster, Henry William

    Nield, Herbert

    Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gordon, SirWEvans-(T'r.Ham.

    Percy, Earl

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cave, George

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS, Edm'ds

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Cecil, Lord J. P. J.(Stamford)

    Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

    Thomson, W. M. (Lanark, N. W

    Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnH

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

    Chamberlain, RtHn. J.A(Worc.

    Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Liddell, Henry

    Younger, George

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A.R

    Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Cross, Alexander

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Main Question put, and agreed to.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on main Question [19th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
    810
    "Most Gracious Sovereign.
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your

    811
    Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

    UNREST IN INDIA AND PARTITION OF BENGAL.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid he was sure that in bringing his Amendment before the House he would be treated with consideration by the many hon. Members who were new to the House but who had a wide knowledge of Indian affairs. The Amendment drew attention, in the first place, to the widespread dissatisfaction and unrest in India due to the recent policy of the Government, culminating in the partition of Bengal, and went on to set forth the opinion that such modifications should be made in the form of administration in Bengal as would tend to allay the existing discontent. Lastly, it expressed the hope that the Government would consider the reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their own affairs. It was not necessary for him to say that this Amendment was not moved in any hostile sense to the present Government. They, on the Ministerial side of the House, had the fullest confidence that his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India and the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged would, as far as practicable, reflect in their Indian policy the great change that had come over this country as revealed by the General Election. They were met with the fact that this dissatisfaction and unrest existed to a wide extent in India at the present moment, and it was felt that a declaration of the policy of His Majesty's Government should be made—not in regard to details, because that would be absolutely impossible, seeing that the Government had been in office for so short a time—but a declaration of the spirit of that policy which they believed would be of great value in India at the present day in allaying the existing tension of the situation. He would deal, in the first place, with the partition of Bengal only in outline, leaving to those who had personal local knowledge of the conditions of the situation to deal with
    812
    the details. By the provisions of the Order for the partition, Bengal was divided into two. Eastern Bengal was added to Assam and a new province was formed under a Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam. The main ground alleged for this change was that it was necessary because of the increased burdens of administration in Bengal, and the impossibility of maintaining in the circumstances a high standard of efficiency. Now that proposition was not assented to by those who had the largest experience of the facts of the case. But he ventured to make to the House this proposition, that even if it were desirable on administrative grounds to divide Bengal and readjust the boundaries, surely when there was more than one alternative plan, it was unjust that that particular one which aroused discontent and indignation among the whole population connected with it should have been adopted. It should be remembered that this matter had been discussed in India for some years, but only in 1903 were formal proposals made. Definite action, however, was not taken by the Government of India till twelve months afterwards. Immediately the scheme for partition met with the strongest opposition in all parts of the province. Undeterred by this, the Government proceeded with their plans, and in February following the Indian Government sent home a despatch containing their proposals to Mr. Brodrick, then Secretary for India. On June 9th last year a despatch was sent back to India practically sanctioning these proposals. Now, a few days after the late Government had sent the despatch to the Indian Government assenting to their proposals, the annual debate on the Indian Budget took place, and was it not rather strange that, notwithstanding the fact that the agitation against them in India was then at its height, not a single word was said in the debate by the then Secretary for India to indicate that the Home Government had approved of any scheme for the partition of Bengal? Indeed, the House of Commons knew nothing of the scheme officially until the early days of August last, when the announcement of the proclamation bringing the scheme into operation was

    813
    made. On August 9th he moved the Adjournment of the House on the question, and pressed the Government of the day to postpone the operation of the Order until they had further information. During that debate his right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, who was Secretary for India in the last Liberal Administration, pleaded that he was not at that time sufficiently informed on the subject to vote in the pending division, although the right hon. Gentleman indicated what his opinion might possibly be; and then in weighty words he urged Mr. Brodrick to postpone the operation of the Order and to give further Papers. On the undertaking that the operation of the Order would be so postponed he (Mr. Herbert Roberts) withdrew his Motion for the Adjournment of the House. What was his surprise, therefore, some time in September, to find from the papers the announcement that the Order for the partition of Bengal would come into operation on October 16th. He immediately wrote to Mr. Brodrick, protesting against the proposal, and asking him to postpone the operation of the Order until the further Papers promised had been presented to Parliament. Mr. Brodrick was not now in the House of Commons to explain, and he did not desire to say more than to repeat that the impression made on his mind and on others by the undertaking of Mr. Brodrick was that the operation of the Order would be postponed until the House of Commons had had the information desired. He could not understand what object could be served by promising to give further information if at the time it had been definitely decided not to postpone the operation of the Order, knowing as they did what the obvious effect would be in Bengal. It created a sense of injustice, brought forth the fruit of widespread discontent, an alienation of feeling and friction. Every conceivable constitutional device had been adopted for the purpose of bringing before the Government of India the mind of the people of Bengal and their deep-rooted objection to this Order. Petitions had been presented; public meetings had been held in all parts of the country in opposition to it. Another direct consequence of the policy of the
    814
    Government was that it produced retaliation on the part of the people concerned in trade matters by the boycotting of Manchester goods, and the spread and stimulation of the Swadeshi movement for the consumption of home-made goods. He could only say that these were signs which ought not to be passed lightly by Parliament; and he was glad to have the opportunity of bringing this Amendment before the House, in order that anything said here might tend to allay the agitation. Another effect of the Order, much to be regretted, had been the action of the Government in attempting to suppress the agitation. The Statesman, a journal well known for its unswerving loyalty to the Indian Government recently said—
    "The successive Orders issued by Mr. Fuller had been designed to take away the right of public meeting."
    (Mr. Fuller was the Lieutenant-Governor of the Eastern Division of Bengal.)
    "Goorkhas had been quartered upon the people, and a campaign of suppression continued which in any other part of India would have resulted in dangerous rioting."
    He hoped that it would be possible for his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India to say something on this case which would tend to lessen the agitation against the Order. The third and last question which might be asked was, "What was there in this Order to cause such a tempest of feeling?" His right hon. friend the Member for East Wolverhampton, in the debate which took place in August last on this question, pointed out how in our own country the greatest excitement very frequently arose over questions relating to the transfer of boundaries in municipalities and in some country districts, and that these rose into grave matters. Might he point out that the case of the partition of Bengal was not one relating to a small municipality or country district? Bengal was the premier province of India. Considerations arose of race, language, intellectual development, historical associations, national aspirations. All those things had combined to create in the mind of the people of Bengal an intense pride in the land of their birth. They were proud of the capital—Calcutta—which was not only the capital of Bengal but the metropolis of India; and they saw in this

    815
    division of the province a blow at the fame of their city. This question of partition could not be looked upon from one standpoint alone. It must be remembered that it was but the culmination of a series of measures which, say what they liked, were interpreted by the people of India to mean a desire on the part of the Government to repress, curtail, and prevent future agitation. It was thought that that was the motive which underlay this Order. It was the general impression of the people of India that the aim and object of this Order dividing the Province of Bengal was to weaken the political power of that Province. In support of this idea, there was one sentence in the despatch of the Government of India dated April 9th, 1905, which seemed to corroborate that view—
    "It cannot,"
    says the Government of India,
    "be for the lasting good of any country that public opinion, or what passes for public opinion, should be manufactured by a comparatively small number of people at a single centre, and should be disseminated for universal consumption."
    He put it to the House without distinction of Party or nationality that those words clearly conveyed the impression that the underlying motive of the policy carried out by the Partition Order was to do something to weaken the power of Calcutta and Bengal. Another thing to be added to these considerations was the hurried way in which this Order was passed, a fact which was recognised by the dispatch of Mr. Brodrick of July 9th, where it is admitted that the scheme in its complete form had not been laid before the public officials. Lastly, they must remember that in its final form this scheme was never discussed by the House of Commons, and the cumulative evidence of all these facts went far to explain why this widespread and deep-rooted agitation in Bengal and India had arisen against this Partition Order. It may be asked what alternative proposition was to be made? He desired to leave any suggested proposal to be considered by the Government to his hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham, who in this matter, he thought, had almost a unique experience in regard to
    816
    the conditions of the Government of Bengal; but he would like to say, before he left the matter, that he for one recognised to the full that the Order having been passed and the partition having been made, it was essential that in any modification which might be found possible by the House, care should be taken to disturb as little as possible the administrative machinery which had been already formed under the Order. As to the second part of the Amendment, namely, that
    "The reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their affairs should receive the consideration of the Government,"
    he thought they were fortunate on this occasion in having those demands outlined for them by the President of the Indian National Congress in his Presidential address in December of last year. They were of a reasonable kind and could be summarised under four heads: (1) that the number of elected members upon the Viceroy's Council should be increased to twelve, out of a total of twenty-five; (2) that the number of elected members on the Legislative Council should be increased; (3) with the appointment of three Indian representatives upon the Secretary of State's Council; and lastly, that advisory Boards for consultative purposes should be established in all districts in India. All that was asked for was that the representative members should be increased; a majority was not asked for. The only representation invited was such as would secure that the Indian point of view should be put forward in the discussion and settlement of matters of local administration. What, briefly, were the steps which had led up to the present demand for further powers of self-government in India? The foundation was to be found in the historic phrase in the Queen's Proclamation of 1858; then twenty years ago there was the founding of the Indian Congress. Then came the Indian Councils Act of 1892—a great step forward in the direction which he was suggesting should be followed at the present time. All that the Amendment really asked for now was that there should be an extension of the principle laid down and conceded by the

    817
    Indian Councils Act of 1892. Since 1892 education had been progressing in India and Western ideas had been more impressed upon the natives. At the same time they recognised that we must proceed slowly step by step and in accordance with the conditions of the case. The present conditions of life in India were the result of fifty years of development and British rule. But there was a matter which must be taken into account, and that was the rise of an Eastern power, which had created a great impression upon the mind and spirit of India. Whatever view hon. Members took of the ultimate goal of our rule in India, let this House recognise facts; let them endeavour to understand the views and wishes of India and let them make it clear that their desire in the future was to win the co-operation and not the hostility of the masses we governed in India. Some people took the view that the extension of the powers of local self-government in India might lead to the loss of India. If that were true, which he emphatically denied, the continuance of the present policy would likewise have the same result. One thing he would suggest to the House was that we required in India to have the same qualities of courage, foresight and statesmanship in order to adapt ourselves to the existing conditions, and work out the problems which now faced us in India, as were required by our forefathers in winning India, and constructing a government in that country which was the pride of the British nation. There was one fine phrase used by Burke on India worth remembering—
    "The situation of the man is the preceptor of his duty."
    They desired to recognise the changes that were taking place in India, and recognising these facts to decide their future policy. His right hon friend the Secretary of State for India many years ago wrote a life of Burke in which there was one sentence which ran—
    "The lesson of the Warren Hastings impeachment had been taught with sufficiently expressive force. It was that Asiatics have rights, Europeans obligations, and that the authority of the English Legislative is not more certainly a trust for the benefit of this country than is the dominion of the English in India a trust for the inhabitants of India."
    818
    Sixty years ago Macaulay said from his place in this House these memorable words—
    "The destinies of our Indian Empire are covered with thick darkness. It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system until it has outgrown our system; that by good government we may educate our subjects with a capacity for better government; that having become instructed in European knowledge they may in some future age demand European institutions. Whether such a day will come I know not, but never will I attempt to avert or retard it. Whenever it comes it will be the proudest day in England's history."
    In conclusion, he expressed his deep conviction that if we proceeded wisely and cautiously in this direction, any step which we took would not be one leading to separation, but would be another link in the chain binding the people of India to the throne and the people of this country. He begged to move.
    Sir H. COTTONseconded the Amendment, and as a new Member craved the indulgence which was always accorded by the House under such circumstances. He had, he said, at least one claim for trespassing so early upon the time of the House in that he had spent many long years of faithful service under the Crown in India, and had acquired an experience in the affairs of that country which entitled him to express an opinion for the consideration of the House. More than that, he had acquired in a degree which was rare, if not as he believed unprecedented, the confidence and trust of the Indian people, who had appointed him in no informal manner their mouthpiece in this House, especially on such occasions as the present, when their interests and matters in which they were vitally concerned were being discussed. Sympathy was the keynote of successful administration in India The people of India were the most grateful people in the world. It had often surprised him to observe how splendidly they had recognised on many occasions the services of Englishmen who had, indeed, done nothing for them beyond their mere duty. When Lord Curzon returned to India after the expiration of the first period of his

    819
    Vice-Royalty, he said to the natives of Bombay—
    "I pray the native community to believe in the good faith and high honour and the integrity of Englishmen."
    The people of India did place implicit trust in this country. There was also no question of the loyalty, absolutely none, of the educated classes of the people of India. With the permission of the House he would recall an incident which lately occurred during the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to India. He noted in this connection the expression in the King's most gracious Speech, in which he said—
    "The reception which the Prince and Princess of Males have met with from all classes has been most gratifying to me, and I trust their visit will tend to strengthen among my subjects in India the feeling of loyalty to the Crown and attachment to this country."
    Those words were true. The result of the visit had been to strengthen that feeling of attachment and loyalty which the people of India felt and have always felt towards England. A gentleman whose name would be unknown to this House, but who had for forty years been one of the leaders of the party of advanced thought—the party which had urged reforms on the Government, had unsparingly criticised men and measures, and was regarded with suspicion by the late administration—was brought into contact with His Royal Highness and, somewhat to his surprise, introduced to him. He fell upon his knees and with folded hands, after the Oriental manner, in faltering accents protested loyalty and devotion to the Crown and this country. That action on the part of one who had been unjustly charged with disloyalty was a very remarkable one, because it was the strongest evidence of the goodwill and loyalty which lay at the heart of the educated Indian people. The Indian people were loyal and were grateful for the education with which they had been endowed, and for the liberty they enjoyed; and they were grateful for their immunity from invasion. But that gratitude was tempered by the feeling that the pledges held out to them by the late Queen Victoria in her Proclamation and by men in exalted positions, had not been fulfilled. The position of India now
    820
    was different from what it was a generation or two previously. The people had acquired aspirations and hoped to take an active and dominant part in the administration and government of their country; they had now reached the parting of the ways. We had given education to the people of India, and it was impossible now to go on indefinitely refusing the concessions they demanded. Year by year we had been turning out from the universities men with the best education we could give, engendering in their minds western habits of thought and kindling in their hearts many aspirations. The duty of administration in India was a comparatively easy one. It was easy to administer the affairs of a docile and subject people. There was no country—and he poke from long experience, having been charged with the administration of a province—more easy to administer than India, because the people were so docile, law-abiding and amenable, but something more than mere administration was wanted now. Instead of merely administering provinces, the Government would have now to raise India, under our sway, into a great Empire, foster and protect the patriotic tendencies of the people, and to exercise that quality of statesmanship which the late John Bright in a memorable speech described as "foreseeing." It was necessary not only to appreciate the changes that had taken place but to prepare for further changes. Lord Ripon was the most benevolent and popular Viceroy that India had ever seen. He justly urged on behalf of a scheme of local self-government that it would be an instalment of political education. The period of Lord Ripon was the golden age of Indian reformers, and he was supported by some of the ablest of English administrators, in particular by Sir Evelyn Baring, now Lord Cromer, who had never wavered from the views he expressed more than twenty years ago on behalf of enlarging the liberties of the Indian people and by the present Clerk of this House. Under Lord Ripon and his able and sympathetic advisers education was encouraged, liberties fostered, and the foundation of Indian nationality firmly laid. They had read in the columns of The Times that we must wearily retrace our steps

    821
    and devote ourselves to educating the Indians in character and common-sense; that then, and not till then, could we admit them into the politecture of self-government; that we must wait until generation after generation of educated Indians had come and gone. This was but the vapouring of reaction; all this was canting sentiment. A system of government which deliberately excluded the people from power was more efficacious in depressing their character than all our laws and school books could be in elevating it. British officials in India had a great and unexampled sphere of work before them. But, however great might be their energy and activity, it counted as dross if they lacked the higher genius of training the people by making them work for themselves, of evoking their powers by affording them opportunities for their exercise, and of raising them from a condition of mere passive subjection to a capacity for the discharge of higher responsibilities. No system of administration could be progressive or beneficial which did not foster the self-reliance of the people and encourage their aspirations to realise their destiny through their own exertions. They had known what it was in England to witness a policy of re-action They had passed through some seventeen years during which many reactionary measures had been forced on a reluctant people. The echo of this reaction had extended to India, and, in the terms of the Amendment, it had excited widespread dissatisfaction and unrest, which was a source of danger in India, and, which could not but be regarded with great apprehension. He would summarise the reactionary tendencies to which he had referred, and which had gone on for the last ten years or more. They had seen legislation designed to curtail the liberty of the Press and speech; they had seen a crusade against so-called sedition, which was wisely allowed to die out; they had witnessed an attempt to abolish trial by jury, which fortunately failed; they had seen blows dealt at local self-government, especially in Calcutta, where, in total disregard of repeated and emphatic expressions of public opinion, a longstanding and successful system of representative municipal administration
    822
    had been swept away. They had witnessed the open declaration of race disqualification for public offices, a general trend of policy to exclude the children of the soil from positions of trust and responsibility, and to deny them the opportunities of acquiring the qualifications necessary in the posts monopolised by Englishmen. They had seen the substitution of nomination for appointments in the place of competitive examinations. They had seen a policy of knitting together still more tightly the bonds of official control over departments of education. These and other similar measures of a reactionary or retrograde tendency had galvanised the people into a condition of dissatisfaction and unrest. But all these measures might not have led to the condition of affairs which now prevailed in India. They had culminated in the measure known as the partition of Bengal. There was an old history attaching to the partition. It began so long ago as 1892, when it was proposed to separate a portion of the province and add it to Assam, on the ground that it was desirable that the whole of the north-east frontier of India should be placed under one administration. Not much came of that at the time, but in 1896, when he was himself at the head of the administration of Assam this question came up again, and on behalf of the province he agreed to the proposal that the control over the wild and savage tribes on the north-east frontier should be transferred from Bengal to Assam, but he gave good reasons for objecting to any transfer of what were called the regulation portions of the Province. His arguments prevailed, and nothing was done so long as he remained in India. But in December, 1903, certain proposals were put forward for dividing the province of Bengal—for annexing a considerable portion of the regulation districts to Assam. As soon as the proposal was put forward it was met with a perfect tornado of opposition. Meetings were held everywhere, memorials were submitted, and the whole country-side was roused. Lord Curzon then visited the affected districts, and made three speeches in different places, in which he endeavoured to subdue the agitation, but at the same time he adumbrated a much larger scheme of

    823
    partition—one which proposed to divide Bengal in a more decisive manner than had hitherto been contemplated. These proposals, far from palliating, further excited the feeling in the country and protests continued without stint or stay, but no official—no public—utterance was ever made in India intimating to the people of the country what was definitely proposed. All the deliberations that took place were behind the back of the people. It was not till February, 1905, that a despatch was sent to His Majesty's Secretary of State. The people of India had no idea of what was contained in the despatch. He happened to be in India revisiting the country at that time, and he well remembered the fever of excitement which prevailed with regard to the policy which the Government of India intended to follow. In the Legislative Council questions were poured in. No answer was given. Memorials were addressed to the Government, but no reply was received. It was thought by a credulous people that the Government were actually prepared in deference to public opinion to abandon the scheme of partition which had been so injudiciously proposed. Vain hope! This despatch was sent, and after due delay the late Secretary of State for India replied to it on June 9th, and very soon after the arrival of this despatch telegrams appeared in the papers intimating that His Majesty's Ministers had approved of the partition of Bengal. Then all the outbreak burst forth again, There were public meetings—the largest, the most influential, the most enthusiastic, he supposed, that had ever been held in India, to protest against what had been done—done behind the people's backs, in the dark. And then the Government of India published a resolution of July 19th indicating the steps which it had been resolved on to take in regard to the division of Bengal. Further protests went on in India, and it was with reference to this agitation that the debate, which his hon. friend who moved this Amendment referred to, took place in this House. He listened to the debate on that occasion, though not on the floor of this House, and certainly the impression left on his mind was
    824
    the same as that which was shared by his hon. friend, and after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, he certainly understood that Mr. Brodrick's reply gave a definite pledge that until the House was in possession of the facts of the case, and could consider the question from both sides, no further steps would be taken to press on the partition of Bengal. They all knew that no notice whatever was taken by the late Secretary of State of the debate in this House, and as early as September 1st a proclamation was issued in India stating that all the present arrangements regarding the partition were definitely and finally settled, and that the partition would take place on October 16th, and this was promptly followed by special legislation at Simla—a most unusual step, because legislation at Simla ordinarily took place only when uncontested, uncontentious matter was under consideration. Here was a question which had aroused Indian feeling to a degree unparalleled within his experience of the country, and the Government of India actually proceeded to legislation at Simla when not a single Indian Member was present in Council. He hoped he had given some indication of the strong feeling which prevailed in India. There had been many meetings to protest and many telegrams had been despatched to the Secretary of State for India. These meetings had been held in almost every village of the province, and never in the history of India had there been such evidence of public feeling as there had been in regard to this partition. All classes of the community were represented in these protests. He might be told that the Mahommedans had not joined with the Hindoos. To a partial extent that was true, but the great majority of the Mahommedan community were absolutely at one with the Hindoos in this matter. This was not a matter in which it had been found possible to arouse any sectarian animosity. It was alleged, and he hoped it was not true, that the policy of the Indian Government had been to create and to encourage these differences of opinion between Hindoos and Mahommedans. He could not believe that there was any foundation for such a charge. There were many

    825
    traces of this policy at the present moment, and certainly everything was being done and pressed forward to bring the Mahommedans into evidence as against the Hindoos, but that movement had failed because the great mass of the Mahommedans were at one with the Hindoos. He might point out that this agitation was not confined to the educated classes of the country, but all classes were affected by it. The shopkeepers and the agriculturists alike were affected, and this agitation had found its way into the heart of the nation. There never was a movement so thoroughly popular in India of its character. It was idle to say that it was dying out, because it was not. During the past month the agitation had been stronger than ever. On January 31st last one of the most sober and distinguished of Bengalee gentlemen, who had received the title of Rajah, when he addressed a crowded audience, said—
    "How could we talk of peace when there was no peace?"
    Those words echoed the feelings and sentiments of all present at that meeting, and indeed of the whole of Bengal. What was the reason put forward for this partition? They were always given an administrative reason, and it was that the province of Bengal was too large and possessed too great a population for one man to administer. He admitted that the Government of Bengal was a very heavy and arduous charge. Upon this point he could speak with as much authority and as much knowledge as most people, for although he had not himself held the high dignity of Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, he had been Under-Secretary and Chief Secretary to seven successive Lieutenant-Governors, and he had been more closely associated with the Government of Bengal for a long period than any other officer of his time in India. Consequently he could speak with some authority upon this question of excessive work and excessive responsibility imposed upon the Lieutenant-Governor. He did not hesitate to say that the work of a Lieutenant-Governor at the present time was actually lighter than it was twenty or thirty years ago. The reason of this was that the whole country had changed during those thirty years. It was nearly forty years ago since he first entered the Bengal
    826
    Civil Service, and in those days the difficulties of moving about the country, of getting in touch with the people, of consulting officers and others responsible for the administration in different parts of the country, were almost insup rable. A Lieutenant-Governor had to spend a great deal of time in travelling at great personal discomfort to himself in all parts of the province. Now they had the telegraph and railways in every direction, and they could go in a few hours' time distances which formerly took two, three, or even four days. He thought this was a sufficient explanation by itself as to why the work and responsibility was lighter to-day than it used to be. He admitted that new interests had arisen, and that in other ways there might be more to do for a Lieutenant-Governor, but taken altogether the work was really less. It had never been found that any member of the Bengal Civil Service, who had been promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Governor—that was to say any member of the service who had had previous service in Bengal—had ever complained of excessive work, and the complaint had always come from members of the Civil Service who had been transferred to Bengal from other parts of India. It had been too much the habit to appoint to the Lieutenant-Governorship officers belonging to other services. That practice did not prevail in other provinces so much, but those men who had been so transferred to Bengal were the only men who complained of being overworked. No doubt they were overworked, and they learned the work at great sacrifice and at the cost of the people. They frittered away their time in petty details and small matters of administration which ought to have been left to their subordinates, but which they found it necessary to take up in order to learn something about the country over whose affairs it was their place to exercise authority. So much for the argument of overwork, but the real reason for the partition of Bengal was, he regretted to say, of a very different character. It was no mere administrative reason that lay at the root of the partition scheme. That scheme was part and parcel of a policy intended to destroy political responsibility and to crush the patriotism of the Indian people. The Bengalee race, with

    827
    all their faults, were the principal section of the community who had inspired the new national patriotism in which was centred the hope and destiny of their country. This partition was designed to weaken the Bengalee ascendancy. The object of the partition was to strike a blow at an intelligence and enterprise which had taken a form which the officials did not approve of. Upon this point he would quote again the words from the despatch of February, 1905, which had been quoted by his hon. friend—
    "It cannot be for the lasting good of any country that public opinion, or what passes as public opinion, should be manufactured by a comparatively small number of people at a single centre and then disseminated for universal consumption."
    These words explained clearly enough the political object which the Government of India had in view. He had heard this partition described by a right hon. Gentleman who was lately the Secretary for India—he alluded to Lord George Hamilton, who personally he much regretted was not still in the House of Commons, and therefore unable to take part in this debate—as a "mere duplication of administrative machinery." There was no foundation whatever for such an assertion. What was a duplication of administrative machinery? What did it mean? In the House of Commons it would mean that they would have two Speakers instead of one, for that would be a duplication of their administrative machinery. But what had been done in Bengal was to create two separate Governments, with separate executive powers, separate legislative power, separate laws, and a separate administration. How they could possibly call that a duplication of administrative machinery passed his comprehension altogether. It had been compared to the division of the Ridings of Yorkshire, where no separate governments on separate administration existed. A more accurate comparison would be the division of Scotland into two parts under separate Viceroys. Imagine what would be the result if any such proposals were put forward! But they have not only been put forward but actually carried into effect in Bengal. The result had been the irritation which he had de-
    828
    scribed. The wish of the people of Bengal was that the old state of things should be restored, and that they might still be placed under one Government. He confessed that he shared the feeling expressed by his hon. friend, that practical considerations would render any such arrangement extremely difficult. It was very difficult indeed to undo what had once been done, and that was an experience which His Majesty's Ministers were having in more than one direction. It was not easy to undo the partition of Bengal, but it was possible to meet the feeling in India by some modification of the existing arrangement which would proceed along the line of least resistance. He hoped the Government would give that proposal their most earnest consideration. Now there was a new Lieutenant-Governor, new commissioners, a new board of revenue, new secretaries, new heads of departments. A great many agreeable appointments had been created, the cancelling of which would be extremely unpleasant to the incumbents. He went so far as to say that it was almost impracticable, all things considered, to abolish the partition of the Province. The proposal he had to make was that Bengal proper should be left alone, that there should be no partition of the Bengali-speaking races of the province, and that in order to provide for the new officials there should be created a new province in the western direction of Bengal, establishing as the capital of that province the ancient city of Patna, and including within that province the whole of Behar and Chota Nagpore. This would comprise an area of 80,000 miles and a population of well over 30,000,000. The whole of this would be practically a Hindustani-speaking area. There was a wide difference between Behar and Bengal. One was Hindustani and the other Bengali. Possibly that definition would convey no impression or meaning to the House. It meant that the people spoke different languages, that they did not intermarry, and that their food and diet were different. The Hindustanis were not a rice-eating people like the inhabitants of Bengal. He urged the Government to leave Bengal alone and undisturbed and that the paraphernalia

    829
    of the new Government should be transferred from Dacca, which was Bengali to the very roots, to Behar. He further suggested that it might be convenient to add to Behar the province and division of Benares, which most closely resembled Behar. In fact there was no difference whatever between the natives of Benares and Behar. In that case the population would be no less than 42,000,000, which would make a new large central province which would be known as Behar. Bengal would consist of the Bengali-speaking people, and to it it would be necessary to add Assam. Assam was the province of which he was chief commissioner for six years, and he thought he could speak with some authority when he said it was desirable that it should go back again to Bengal, to which it formerly belonged. It was separated in 1874, and if the truth was to be told the separation had never been a very great success. In order to meet the special conditions of that province, with its wide frontier and various tribes, which required special knowledge, and in order to deal also with the large tea industry which was in Assam, it was desirable that the commissioner of that province should be vested with special powers—such powers as were to be found working advantageously in other parts of India where somewhat similar conditions existed. He referred particularly to the province of Scinde, where the Governor of Bombay delegated his powers by statute and was relieved practically of direct responsibility for the administration of that province, only the more important and larger questions coming before him for his consideration. That was the proposal he had to make in regard to the new province. He was convinced, however, that the desire in India in favour of the appointment of a Governor and Council for the old province would not be modified by the mere acceptance of the proposals he had put forward. The appointment of a Governor and Council in Bengal had always been contemplated. Under the Statute of 1853 a temporary arrangement was made, which was to prevail only until the Governor and Council should be appointed. He had intended to deal with the reasons why the appointment of a Governor and Council was necessary, but having already trespassed unduly on the time of the
    830
    House, he would not do so now. Perhaps he would have other opportunities of discussing the matter with the representatives of the Government in the India Office. It was a most important question, and he trusted it would receive most careful consideration.
    Amendment moved—
    "At end of the Question to add the words, 'But we humbly beg lo represent to Your Majesty that this House regards with concern the wide-spread dissatisfaction and unrest of India due to the recent policy of the Government, culminating in the partition of Bengal, and is of opinion that such modifications should be made in the form of administration in Bengal as will tend to allay the existing discontent; and we further beg to represent to Your Majesty that the reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their affairs should receive the consideration of the Government.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts.)
    Question proposed—"That those words be there added."
    SIR J. JARDINEsaid I he had no intention of referring to the matters relating to Bengal, having little official or local knowledge of the questions connected with the partition of the province. He would deal chiefly with the second part of the Amendment, and in doing so he would endeavour to say nothing which would embarrass a sympathetic Government or introduce contentious matter to which hon. Members opposite could object, for he thought in a new Parliament he might quote what was said by an eminent man some years ago, namely, that they were all Members of Parliament for India no matter where they sat. He thought it had been conceded time after time in this House and in the country by both of the great political Parties that the natives of India should be employed in the administration of the country as much as possible and as far as was consistent with good government. He need not argue that principle this afternoon. He dared say hon. Members had heard that the more they gave the educated Indian natives the more they would want. No doubt that was the case, but it was not alone among Indians that this result was found. It was, naturally enough, the effect of an education extending over a hundred years. It was also reasonable as the value of the

    831
    services of the natives of India had been proved in every department of the Government; and, coming particularly to higher matters of statesmanship, it was, he believed, expedient and statesmanlike for the Gov eminent to lend a sympathetic ear to these aspirations. When one thought of the numerous languages and dialects of India, its various castes, its manifold customs and manners, its different systems of property and hereditary rights, it had to be conceded that what is needed in our administration at all times is competent knowledge and general sympathy. A distinguished Governor, Sir John Malcolm, had said that those responsible for pointing indiscriminate abuse at the people of India were usually deficient in a full knowledge of their language; that Europeans could never pretend to that familiarity with the native dialects such as native gentlemen possessed. He himself had been associated for years with native Indian judges in the High Courts, men of high reputation, great learning and versatile capacity. The same sort of persons were found in the Legislative Councils and would be of much usefulness if admitted into the Executive Government at the various Presidencies. In those Executive Councils the same qualifications would be valuable, learning in the law, knowledge of facts, power to adjudge on evidence, the understanding of native subordinates and their character, the familiarity with native aspirations and dislikes. There was another quality which they possessed which was very valuable, both in matters of justice and in administration—a talent which he believed made Scotsmen such acceptable Members of this House. They had the power of listening. People in India explained why the Government officials had been provided by a kind Providence with two ears; it was that there was one for the plaintiff and another for the defendant. He therefore supported the Amendment.
    MR. REESsaid he would not have interfered in the debate in so far as the question of the partition of Bengal was concerned, had he not thought it necessary that something should be said by some person conversant with India, and not taking the line of the hon. Member for East Nottingham. He
    832
    would not deny that there was a strong public opinion against this measure in Bengal, and that it had been exhibited in a legitimate manner in the Press and at public meetings. He went further, and admitted that there was a national feeling in Bengal which had grown up because it was believed that the existing system was of benefit to Bengal, the Bengalis, and Calcutta. He likewise admitted that the Chamber of Commerce of Calcutta—a body capable of expressing an opinion of great value—was opposed to this partition, and that that opinion was shared by the European Trades Association, although he did not understand that their objection was exceedingly strong or insuperable. But there was another class who were interested in this matter to whom the hon. Member for East Nottingham had not referred. He meant the planting class. He had made inquiry and had special means of finding out that the planting class were not averse from this measure. On the contrary, they approved of it. It was their interest that coolies should be obtained for labour in the tea-gardens; and he ventured to say that if the Bengal Government had erred in any way in this matter it was in that they had been protecting the coolies too much to their own disadvantage. For the coolies who had gone as labourers to the tea-gardens had taken the opportunities they had of acquiring land and settling in the neighbourhood of the gardens. That showed that they had been well-treated by the planters, who were just and generous employers of labour. It was said that the people of Bengal would never be satisfied until they had a Governor and a Council like Madras and Bombay. He had some knowledge of Presidency government, and believed the system to be so bad that it had only been possible to work it because the men were so good. Since the seat on the Council of the Commander-in-Chief had been abolished, the Governor might be in a minority for his whole term of five years. This was a system which had strained the abilities of Warren Hastings, and though it would ill become him to say that the Presidency Governors were not able men—indeed he held exactly the opposite opinion—yet it might safely be assumed, that they had

    833
    not been, and would not be, superior to Warren Hastings. The hon. Member for East Nottingham had made a claim which he was bound to deprecate; viz., that he represented the people of India. Hon. Members in this House were only representatives of their constituencies, and any other position that was given to them would be entirely due to the knowledge of the subject under discussion and their handling of it. He would put against the experience of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, as Secretary and Under - Secretary in Bengal, the experience of Sir Charles Elliott, who had been Lieut.-Governor of Bengal, and an exceedingly capable Governor who said it was the one office he had held in India in regard to which he was unable to say that he had done his daily duty as he would have liked to have done it. It was impossible to adopt the opinion of any one officer on this subject and the officer whose experience had been in one province was less likely to form a correct judgment than one who bad filled many offices in many provinces. He held it unnecessary and unwise to discuss this measure here, because of the use which would be made of the discussion in India. In common with the mover and seconder he wished that the matter had not been pursued until Papers had been laid, and the way in which the matter had throughout been conducted no doubt exacerberated the feelings of those concerned. It was also unusual that the measure should have been passed at Simla, but however carried, it had become an accomplished fact. The opinion of the planters deserved, however, the special consideration of this House. They had never been guilty of any cruelty to their employees, or of any conduct towards them of which complaint could be made. The measure might have been carried in a somewhat more public manner, but it was possible that if it had been communicated to those who were concerned there would have been difficulty in passing it. He did not say it was hurried through for that reason, but he thought that the feelings of the Bengalese in this matter did not receive due consideration. In discussing the further employment of the natives of India he did not want to indicate to-day what particular offices should be given them.
    834
    That seemed as futile as any attempt to carve India into new provinces this afternoon in this House. But he thought more might be done in that direction. The Indians made most admirable judges and served on the benches of the High and other Courts with the greatest distinction. For his part he should like to see them made district judges in larger numbers. Greek philosophers and sophists had been introduced into the House already, and a Greek poet had said that a man was a fool who did not know how much the half was better than the whole. He did not believe that he would have excluded from the application of that principle speeches upon the Indian question. He thanked the House for having listened to him so patiently, and trusted that when any question involving his constituency arose they would be equally indulgent with him, as the Welsh, Free Church, Liberal and larger half thereof, had for many years been inarticulate and unrepresented.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELLrose to support the Amendment. Like the preceding speaker he had been an officer in the service of the Bengal Government, and he was extremely pleased to hear the way in which the people of that country had been referred to. A kindlier or a juster people did not exist, and, moreover, Bengal had the most numerous population of any state under the Crown of England—some 50,000,000 people. The better-class inhabitants were highly educated, and this country owed a great debt of gratitude to the Province, for during the 100 years in which Great Britain had been building up its power in India, Bengal had been the milch cow from which we had drawn our resources. We were therefore under in obligation to Bengal and should listen to the representations which it made. These representations appeared to have been made in a very constitutional form. There had been a protest which had rarely come from any country. He associated himself with the hon. Member or East Nottingham in his remark that the recent Government had shown hostility towards these people. That hostility began within three months of Lord Curzon's government. When the

    835
    noble Lord came into power the rights of the Government in the municipality of Calcutta, were protected by twenty-five nominated members, while fifty were elected to represent the wealth, the commerce, and the intelligence of the town. This body had been doing its work well, and it was not till Lord Elgin's time that any question about it arose. Lord Elgin examined into the matter and came to the conclusion that that body was working well, though it was necessary to give more powers to the chairman. But Lord Curzon came in and destroyed the body and reduced the elected members from fifty to twenty-five, so that the popular representatives—merchants, capitalists, and landlords—were always in a minority. A Committee was appointed to examine into the question of rating, but it was a strange fact that not one of the twenty-five elected members were on that Committee. The system of education which had grown up was destroyed and the native members of the University were driven out. While the men of wealth were insulted, the men of education were wronged. The important point was that everybody outside of the Government was hostile to this measure. When the Lieutenant Governorship of Bengal became vacant there was one man for that appointment and that was the hon. Member for East Nottingham. He was, however, undesirable, because he found in Assam the coolies in the tea-gardens were not well used. He himself had had a great deal to do with the supervising of the enlistment of these coolies and knew they were not well treated. The hon. Member for East Nottingham drew attention to this fact and he was put aside. Another gentleman of great experience and ability, Sir James Bourdillon, was opposed to the partition; he was allowed to hold the appointment for a year and he was turned out and Sir Andrew Fraser put in. He had never been a single day in Bengal, and naturally found the task of governing that great province an extremely heavy one. His (Mr. O'Donnell's) knowledge of this question was derived from a twenty years' stay in Bengal. His last appointment was that of a commissioner of a division with 12,000,000 inhabitants, a division that had been taken from Bengal without
    836
    any one being consulted. It seemed to him that the principal argument in this case was that of population. There could not be any argument more erroneous. The difficulty of the government of a country was not a question of population. It was more difficult to administer government to 1,000,000 Englishmen than to 50,000,000 Bengalese. Practically the whole population were docile peasants. Another point urged by the Government was that there had been such a great increase in the population. That also was incorrect. There had been four censuses taken, and he had carried out the third, and he had come to the conclusion that the increase of population was due to the better numeration of the people. But even so, such an argument was ridiculous. The population of England increased threefold during the last century, but nobody had ever heard of partitioning England up into different governments. There was a point to which he did not willingly refer, but it had been referred to by the hon. Member for East Nottingham, and that was that in his opinion this measure had been carried out, not for administrative, but for political reasons, the reason being to break up the power of Bengal and divide it into two. Perhaps Members of this side of the House did net often read the Morning Post, but a few weeks ago the correspondent of that newspaper, who was travelling with the Prince of Wales in India, took up this question of the partition of Bengal and wrote—
    "A study of the subject from that aspect forces upon me the conviction that it was rather a reply to that advocacy than for administrative reasons."
    The advocacy referred to was that of the popular leaders. The correspondent went on to say—
    "The Government desired to strike a blow at intelligence and enterprise which had taken a form of which it did not approve."
    He would take up the time of the House no longer than to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India that it was quite possible to do away with what had been done, and that he fully associated himself with the advice given by the hon. Member for East Nottingham in regard to the erection of

    837
    Behar and Chota Nagpur into a separate province.
    MR. T. HART-DAVIESsaid he did not propose to detain the House at any length, but there were one or two aspects on which he desired to make some observations. He did not know much of Bengal, although he had been there and had friends there, but he could assure the House that what the hon. Member for East Nottingham had said as to the effect of this partition had not been an exaggeration. He knew that in the opinion of the natives this was a deep-laid plan on the part of Lord Curzon and the late Government to diminish the effect of the Government's previous attitude to the people of Bengal. He was not sure whether that was the case or not, or whether that Machiavellian policy was framed by the late Government, but he was rather of opinion it was as part of the wild policy that prompted the late Government to go in for such things as Chinese labour in South Africa and the Somaliland adventure without seeing the result which must accrue. But the result was the same. It was, he thought, unfortunate that a large and peaceful population should be struck at in this way. The Government had a right to do it, but they ought to remember what Burke said: that it was not a question of what it was our legal rights to do, but what it was to our interest to do. The other part of the Amendment raised rather a wider question than any hon. Member had dealt with that evening. People often spoke of the unchanging East, but he did not suppose that any country had changed more during the last thirty years than India. There was a new spirit, a new feeling there. We had a large population now trained by western education, which had been trained in western ideas, and it was absolutely impossible for us to go on refusing to give them an adequate share of the government of their own country. It was time that something was done. It was no exaggeration to say we were now living in the beginning of a great world-crisis. A new feeling had arisen over the whole of the East, a feeling which had attained its most extraordinary development in Japan, which would make the government of our
    838
    dependency of India a very anxious matter for many years to come. There would be difficulties in the way, but if we adopted this new spirit, and imbued the administration of India with it, he did not see why our rule in India should not continue in undiminished splendour through the ages to come in the dim and distant future, and of which no man could see the end. But we had to recognise the new spirit, and if we did not, the circumstances would be such as we should hardly like to think of. It was a good thing in the opinion of many that the affairs of India were in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India. It had always been the curse of the administration of India that too much power had been placed in the hands of officials, and that they had been unable to respond to the aspirations of the people. It was a question that could rightly be dealt with now, and which ought to be taken up at once. We ought to associate the people more with the government of the country, and if we did, and based our government of that Empire on local self-government, he did not see why our government of India should not continue through the centuries.
    MR. SMEATONsaid he had no intention of voting for this Amendment if it was pressed to a division, because he was perfectly confident that the Government, with a great opportunity before it and a long prospect of power in front of it, would do justice to Bengal and to India. At the same time he desired to associate himself with much that had been said by hon. Members who had just spoken. He deplored, in common with all well-wishers of India, the indecent haste and tortuous methods with which this measure of partition was hurried on; but not having lived in Bengal, he did not feel justified in giving an opinion one way or the other with regard to it. He deplored the unfortunate impression which had been undoubtedly created, not only in Bengal, but throughout India, that one object of the partition was to destroy and break up the national and political solidarity of Bengal. The House had heard the question of the partition discussed from both points of

    839
    view. Both the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs and the hon. Member for East Nottingham evidently held briefs. The latter had asserted with some justification that he held a brief for the people of Bengal. He thought, however, that the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs was hardly justified in attacking the hon. Member for East Nottingham in the way he had done, because the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs belonged to a province which they were accustomed to call "Benighted," where opinions on the important subject under discussion were not likely to be illuminating or instructive. As regarded Bengal he (Mr. Smeaton) had little personal knowledge. His service had been rather in the northern northwestern, and central parts, and in the far east of Burmah, so that he could claim a fair acquaintance with the feelings of the people of India as a whole. His object in rising was chiefly to say a few words upon the second part of the Amendment—
    "And we further beg to represent to Your Majesty that the reasonable demands of the Indian people for a larger share in the administration of their affairs should receive the consideration of the Government."
    He had had very valuable opportunities of consulting many representative members of the best educated Indian people all over the continent, and he could say with a certain amount of confidence that the real object of the people of India, as represented by their leaders, was not so much to obtain offices under the Crown—those offices were showered upon them constantly. What they wanted was to get a hand in the control of the policy of India. Their point was—and it was a very vital one—that expenditure and taxation in India were excessive. Expenditure and taxation depended on policy, and therefore they claimed to have some share, subject, of course, to obvious limitations, in directing the policy of their country. It was a common remark, chiefly in the Tory Press, that it was a misnomer to speak of the "Indian people"—that the Indian people had never spoken collectively, and that the idea of anything like a body of Indian public opinion was absurd; that in fact "Indian public opinion" was a myth. That was a grave misapprehension. The people of
    840
    India were very easily moved in the mass when aroused by any sentiment, anger, or affection. They must remember the extraordinary outburst of feeling all over India in thousands of villages when Her Majesty the late Queen was in danger of her life, the prayers that were offered in those villages, and then the deep grief that was exhibited all over the continent when her death was announced. He would point to another instance. The whole of India was aroused unitedly when this country sent its great contribution of relief during the great famine five years ago. He was himself a witness of the universal feeling of gratitude for that help. One more instance—of a sinister kind. In the dark days of the Indian mutiny, fifty years ago, when there were no railways or telegraph, the whole of northern India rose as if by a mysterious telepathy. It was nonsense to say that the Indian people had no collective views when they were moved, and he asserted that they were now moved, and that what they claimed they claimed through their leaders collectively. The one great grievance they felt was that whereas they were taxed beyond their taxable capacity they did not feel that they got value for the money they paid. They were over-governed. They did not believe the government was the system best suited to the condition of the country; and it was far too expensive. Although, it seemed paradoxical, he had no hesitation in saying that there was no country under the sun more democratic than India. India had been over and over again conquered, but the villages never sacrificed their ancient democratic institutions, and no conquest ever suppressed them. He recalled a remarkable instance of this feature of the Indian people. When he went to Agra at the request of the Governor to ascertain if the citizens would accept the octroi system of taxation, the people sent emissaries all over the surrounding districts, and their elected representatives afterwards met him and protested against the introduction of the octroi system, pointing out that it was a tax on imported goods which would raise prices, diminish, consumption, and disorganise trade. The proposed system consequently had to be

    841
    abandoned. They wanted Free Trade, and they got it. Another instance of the democratic disposition of the people was furnished in Burmah, immediately after the annexation. He recalled going up the Irrawaddy immediately after the annexation to endeavour to discover how they could establish peace within some fifty or sixty villages. He went to one village and asked that emissaries should be sent all over the country they represented to obtain an authority with whom he could deal. There instantly assembled a little Parliament of sixty or seventy, who elected a lady as their representative authority, and proceeded to discuss and arrange matters under her leadership, so that their democracy extended to women's suffrage. Was it to be wondered that the spirit of democracy had penetrated the villages, and had been enlarged into districts, which had extended into provinces, and then over the entire country? It seemed to him that the time had come for a Liberal Government to recognise these remarkable facts, and to endeavour not only to convince themselves, but the sceptical among the people of this country and this House, that a great national feeling and aspiration did really exist in India for a share in controlling the policy of the country, and thereby its taxation and expenditure, which they considered to be excessive. Therefore he respectfully suggested that the Government might send a Royal Commission to India to satisfy itself whether or not this national aspiration existed to the extent he had described; and, if it did, what system might be adopted to meet this aspiration; and whether there were not thousands of loyal, educated Indians capable of being employed as the elected representatives of the Indian people in a new form of government to correspond with those aspirations. It was of very happy augury that after seven years of pomp and pageantry, extravagance and misrule, there also had expired a Government which was represented by empty benches opposite, and that the Liberal Party should now be in a position to bestow on India the foundation principles of the Liberal policy—peace, retrenchment, and reform.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): This Parliament presents a considerable number already of new features; and it is a new feature, and one, I think, on which we ought to congratulate ourselves, that this afternoon we have had six maiden speeches in succession from Gentlemen who have shown themselves possessors of a competent knowledge of Indian subjects and were eager to express the views which they represented. I, for one, have no quarrel with my hon. friend the mover of this Amendment. Though I am not one of those who desire that the House of Commons should be always interfering with the complex and difficult affairs of India, yet I think a debate of this kind can do nothing but good to this country and also to our interests in India. Upon the partition of Bengal I do not propose to detain the House very long. I wish very much for many reasons that my right hon. friend Mr. Brodrick was in the House, because he knows better that I can possibly know from the Papers what was in the minds of the India Office and what was also in the minds of the Indian Government of that day. So far as my information goes, I cannot assent to the views of those Gentlemen who have said that the movement for the partition of Bengal arose from political motives and from the desire to repress the expression of political opinion. Whether the original motives may not have taken on some colour of that kind I am not in a position to affirm or deny. But I think my hon. friend the Member for East Nottingham almost admitted that there was a case for the redistribution of the boundaries of the Province of Bengal in the amount of work laid upon the shoulders of the Governor of that province. My hon. friend quoted in another connection Lord George Hamilton, and I am sure we all extremely regret the absence of the noble Lord from our debates. Lord George Hamilton had a longer experience at the India Office as Secretary of State than I think anybody now living. Lord George in December last said that, so far as he could recollect, with scarcely an exception, he had never come into contact with a Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal

    843
    who, when pressed, did not at once admit that the work he had to perform was almost an undue strain upon his strength. There was ample evidence that the labours of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal were enormous. That is not saying that the specific redistribution of the administration of Bengal was the wisest that could be devised. The hon. Member for East Nottingham produced his own scheme to-night, and one or two other Gentlemen have made suggestions. But this is not the moment for a technical examination of the precise way in which this redistribution of the administrative areas was carried out. It had been said that it would have been better if we sent as Governor-General some successful Gentleman from the House of Commons with a council, and some think that that would have been the best plan. Others, Supported by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, thought no more fortunate or happy system of government could be devised judging from the experience of the past. I do not say for a moment that I share that judgment, although I know that it was held and urged by Lord Curzon himself in the discussion of this subject. I take it, then, that some redistribution of areas was advisable. The word "partition" I am afraid is rather misleading, and we are apt to think of Poland and other nefarious transactions of that kind. I should be very sorry to admit that this was a partition in that sense. But it was, and remains, undoubtedly an administrative operation which went wholly and decisively against the wishes of most of the people concerned. It had been said, and unfortunately by an important person in India, that this demonstration of opposition in Bengal was "machine-made opinion," that it was the work of political wire-pullers and political agitators. I have often heard that kind of allegation made before. Governments are apt, when an inconvenient storm of public opinion arises, to lay it at the door of political wire-pullers and agitators. There are, however, Indian officials of great weight and authority who entirely put aside that allegation or insinuation, and who argue that these Calcutta agitators would have had no response from the people they
    844
    were appealing to if there had not been in the minds of the people a distinct feeling that they were going to suffer a great wrong and inconvenience; and, although no doubt the agitators could form and disseminate these views, yet these sentiments and views existed quite independently of any wire-pulling or agitation. That is my own conclusion derived from reading the papers. But the redistribution of Bengal is now a settled fact, and every speech that has been made this afternoon has laid stress upon and given weight to that conclusion. At this moment there is a great subsidence—it may be only temporary—but there is a subsidence of the feeling against the redistribution; and in face of that it would be very unreasonable to ask the Government to start afresh to redistribute the areas and incur what, to my mind, would be a new outlay of taxation. As my hon. friend says, India has just had seven years of pomp and pageantry. The time has not yet come to pass any verdict upon the great administration of Lord Curzon. Some find the energy of it feverish; others find it glorious. At some future date the historian of that time will be able to pronounce much more effectively than we can what Lord Curzon's administration has effected and what not. But none of us will deny his fine powers, his great gifts, and his supreme devotion to what he believes to be the public interests. But my own view is that, at the end of his great period, India should now be allowed to take breath. Therefore, we should now move very slowly. I do not think it would be a desirable or even a defensible movement to attempt to reconstruct Bengal or to restore the old distribution of power in that area. My hon. friend who moved the Amendment suggested there should be an increase in the number of officers on the executive council, an increase in the Legislative Council, that there should be three natives added to the Council of the Secretary of State, and that there should be forthwith an advisory board set up in Calcutta.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: No, an advisory board should be set up, not in Calcutta, but in all the districts of India for purposes of consultation. My remarks had nothing to do with Calcutta
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I would point out that those advisory boards would have no responsibility, that all these other changes would need an Act of Parliament, and I doubt whether good results would follow. Whether the partition was a wise thing or not when it was begun, I am bound to say that nothing was ever worse done so far as disregard of the feeling and opinion of the people is concerned. It is a fundamental principle in any Government in which Englishmen and Scotsmen are concerned that you are bound to consult and take into consideration all the opinions and even the prejudices of those affected. When the scheme was in the first place exhibited to the people of India it was exhibited bit by bit. The first proposal was in one direction to take certain areas, and the second proposal was an extension and alteration of that. A final scheme in which all these competitive efforts were summed up was never submitted to the judgment of any body in Bengal at all. The result of that was the raising of a storm by a plan which was never carried out, and the storm which had been raised raged with just as much violence when the final scheme came to be carried out. I think that is a matter which no defender of the late Government will really stand up for. Coming to the last and most important part, in some respects certainly the widest part of the Amendment, I do not think I need say much. I think I gather already that I need not at all assure hon. Gentlemen who represent Indian interests specially, and I need not assure the House, that so long as I have any responsibility for Indian affairs I shall not be likely to depart from those general principles of Liberalism—not in a Party sense, but in that sense in which both Parties, in my opinion, desire to see India governed. It seems to be sometimes forgotten that India has an ancient civilisation and that the people are not barbarians. The officials who have had most dealings with them admit, and not only admit but proclaim, that these people have in them admirable material upon which you may by and by—and in this case I do not at all object to the phrase "step by step"—build up a system under which they shall
    846
    have a far greater share than they now have in the government. When this Amendment was first put on the Paper, it urged that the Government should take the admission of the natives of India to a larger share in the administration into their immediate consideration. The Viceroy has been on his throne I think three months, and I have occupied my office a few weeks with the trivial interlude of a contested election. For me, therefore, to guarantee the immediate taking of this matter into consideration would, I think, hardly be reasonable, and I am glad that the word has disappeared from the Amendment. But I for one shall deprecate in the case of anybody with whom I have any influence any resort to that rather harsh, rather arrogant, and rather supercilious language towards the people of Bengal which has been used by some from whom I should not have expected it. In the whole field of government there has been enormous activity and energy, no doubt, during the last six or seven years—in education, public works, irrigation, railways, and in regard to the frontier. I am not going into the frontier question now. It was once said that the study of the Apocalypse either found a man mad or made him mad. I sometimes think when I hear these endless discussions about the frontier—not by responsible men, but by irresponsible men—that the north-west frontier is almost as prejudicial a field of study in creating this state of mind as the Apocalypse has been said to be. My own view can be expressed in a few sentences. Though the zeal of your officers—most honourable for them—for great public works has sometimes gone to excess, so far as I am concerned there will be no tendency to stay vigorous action on the part of the Government of India in the direction of works which are proved to be, or which there is good reason to expect will be, of a remunerative character. If you want security and strength in India one of your ways of getting it is to lighten taxation, and I shall look therefore in the direction of greater economy in order to lighten taxation. I respond with all the conviction I have in me to the appeal for sympathy. You may call it sentiment if you like, but a man is ill fitted for the

    847
    governing of otter men if he does not give a large place to the operation of sentiment.
    EARL PERCY: I desire to express my concurrence with the general conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman. No one I believe wishes to impugn the good faith of my right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for India, or to assert that he intended to mislead the House when he promised to lay Papers. The right hon. Gentleman has accused the late Government of some precipitancy in sanctioning this scheme, but I think he hardly makes the charge good. The original scheme was put forward at least three years ago, and it was largely owing to the public criticism with which that scheme was met that it was modified in very important particulars. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he was not aware of the precise motives which actuated the late Government in assenting to this policy—whether their object was to combat political agitation in Bengal. So far as I know, the only object they had in view was to secure administrative efficiency. The wonder to me is that the change which the Government of India proposed has been deferred so long. It is fifty years since Lord Dalhousie described the burden resting on the Government of Bengal as greater than any single man could be expected to bear. Since then the population has risen from 40,000,000 to 80,000,000, and Calcutta in point of population has become the second city of the empire. The demands made on the time and energies of the local government have grown greater and greater every year with the increasing complexity of the problems connected with the rapid expansion of industry, and the development of municipal activity among a people whose proneness to litigation is, I think, only equalled by their aptitude for political controversy and criticism, and the keenness with which they scrutinise every detail of administration. I can hardly imagine a more conclusive proof of the need for this change than the fact that owing to press of business the Lieutenant-Governor is unable to visit many of the districts under his charge more than once in the whole five years of his tenure of office. It being admitted that
    848
    some change was necessary, the late Government were confronted by the fact that only one alternative was possible to that recommended by the Viceroy, and that was the solution alluded to by some of the earlier speakers, namely, the adoption of the Presidency system in force in Bombay and Madras. There seem to be two conclusive reasons against the adoption of such an experiment. In the first place there is the great disparity of population in the three provinces. I speak from memory, but I think the population of Bombay is something like 20,000,000; Madras, 40,000,000, while the population of Bengal is at least double that amount. I doubt very much—it may be rash to say so—whether any one starting de novo with a tabula rasa would now devise the Presidency system as one ideally suited to the needs of Indian government. For what is that system? You send out a gentleman from England who has none of that initial or personal knowledge of the people over whom he is to rule, or of the problems he is expected to solve, which every Resident and Commissioner possesses. In order to correct that inevitable defect, you associate with him two members of the Civil Service whose nominal prestige is inferior, but whose practical control of affairs is as great as his own; you make the Governor in fact, a mere primus inter-pares in a triumvirate, with the result that instead of the sympathetic influence of a personality you have to content yourselves with the intangible authority of a bureaucracy. Now, defective as that system is in the old Presidencies, its transference to the province of Bengal would have been attended with peculiar drawbacks. Owing to the fixity of the land system in Bengal the civil servants there are deprived of one of the readiest means of coming into daily contact with the lives and interests of the people. Whoever is appointed Governor of Bengal must have had previous experience of Indian administration, and his colleagues of the Civil Service would merely serve to divide his authority and weaken his sense of responsibility. There is one very pertinent question which may be put to gentlemen who criticise the change, and that is, "What individual or class would be benefited by the retention

    849
    the old system?" I can imagine only three. The members of the legal profession are naturally apprehensive that in course of time, with the development of the new Province, the local courts will absorb a great deal of the judicial business which now passes through the High Court at Calcutta. Then there is the class of absentee landowners, who prefer the social attractions of the capital to living on their own properties, but in future will have to spend a great deal of their time at their estate offices at Dacca; and, lastly, there is the class whose principal occupation is political agitation, and who will find much of their material for agitation cut away when they are no longer able to point to the neglect of local interests, which under the existing system is almost inevitable. One of the main reasons for this change is the crying need of the Province of Assam for the development of its material resources and an increased efficiency in its administration. Almost every large administrative area in India has its own Civil Service Commission trained on the spot and acquiring fresh knowledge every year of local conditions and requirements; but Assam has had for a long time past to borrow its Commission from Bengal, and has thereby lost the advantage elsewhere derived from length and continuity of service. If there is one principle of government which is elementary, it is that all administration is bad which depends on borrowed men. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has added to it an expression of opinion that the time has come for associating the people of India in a larger measure with the management of their own affairs. That is rather a large subject to tack on as a rider to an Amendment to the Address. I suppose we all desire, whatever the form of government, not only to treat the feelings of the inhabitants with respect, but also, as time goes on and as they show themselves fit, to give them wider opportunities of expressing their opinions on questions that interest them. But even the mover of the Amendment recognised that the process of evolution must be a gradual one. Legislative Councils were not introduced until 1801,
    850
    and thirty years elapsed before any provision was made for native representation upon them. I think it would be rash to take the experience of the last fourteen years as affording adequate justification for a further step in that direction. Considering the character of India and the fact that it is as large as the whole of Europe, excluding European Russia, it is surely obvious that the permanence of British rule depends to a large extent on preserving unity of method. A popular system cannot be applied to one part of India and withheld from another. Though I do not desire any harsh repression of the political aspirations of any section of the community, I think it is safe to say that a great many of the ideals put forward by orators at the Congress are not only wholly opposed to the views of the large majority of the creeds and races of India, but if translated into practice, would be quite unsuited to their practical needs and requirements. There is no doubt that the present scheme has given rise to a great deal of discontent, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy that there is no proposal, even at home, which is more certain to awaken bitterness and opposition than a proposal to alter old geographical limits, to redistribute electoral areas, or to interfere with municipal boundaries. But there is this to be said in favour of the scheme of administrative re-adjustment proposed by the Government of India, that, not only does it subserve the interests of administrative efficiency but it actually secures far better grouping than has hitherto existed both of language and nationality by recognising the preponderance of the Mahommedan element in the North, and amalgamating the Uriyah-speaking populations of the West. I will only observe in conclusion that the same agitation has been raised again and again in connection with similar administrative changes in other parts of India. We all remember the great outcry which arose with regard to the severance of the frontier provinces from the Punjaub, a policy the success of which I conceive is now almost universally recognised.
    SIR H. COTTON: I think that there was no popular objection to that whatever; the objection there was a purely official one.
    EARL PERCY: It is very difficult to gauge how far an agitation does represent a real popular feeling or not. Personally I doubt not from former precedents that within a very short space of time—probably five or six years—those who are loudest in their denunciation of the present scheme will be foremost in their recognition and admiration of the courage with which Lord Curzon has faced a temporary unpopularity in the permanent interest of administrative efficiency.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that, in view of the sympathetic statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the nature of the discussion, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice dealing with the exclusion from this country of foreign contract labour during times of trade disputes. It would be within the recollection of those Members who were present in the last House of Commons that an Amendment very similar to that which he now brought forward was submitted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, when it received great support in the House, the Opposition, he believed, supporting it unanimously. At all events, 148 Members supported it, including the present Home Secretary, his Under-Secretary, the Postmaster-General, and many distinguished members of the present Government. He hoped, therefore, that the principle of the Amendment which he proposed would find acceptance in the House, and that hon. Members on the opposite side would support the views which they then held. No doubt he should be reminded that he himself voted against that Amendment. He was quite prepared for that charge, but he hoped he should not be deemed
    852
    guilty of any inconsistency in the matter, because his reason was that he was most anxious to do nothing whch would jeopardise the passing of the Aliens Act as a whole, and he had to subordinate what he believed to be the lesser to the greater consideration. He had to help the Government by every means in his power to pass that Bill into law, and he could not do anything which would risk the passing of that measure. In spite of that he was at that time and was now in complete agreement with the views of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and his friends. He said so at the time in the House, and he had not changed his opinion in a single particular. As, however, must often happen under a system of Party government, he had to waive his personal feelings in deference to those of the Leaders of the Party to which he belonged. He thought, moreover, he might safely prophesy that there were many hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite who, before this Parliament was over, would find themselves forced into the same position. As he understood the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it was that they had no strong objection, or indeed, any objection whatever, to the admission of any quantity of unskilled or skilled labour during ordinary times, but that they did object to the admission of such labour at times when labour disputes were taking place. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil the other night, he was glad to find, went a little further than that when he however, that the importation or the protested against the employment of an enormous number of foreign seamen on British ships. He heartily agreed with the hon. Member, and hoped that he and his friends would press that point forward. His view was, influx of cheap foreign labour, which from the circumstances of the case was willing and, indeed, often compelled, to work for hours and wages which no trade union would tolerate, must have an adverse effect upon the general standard of work and living of the employés, and place them at a disadvantage. There was no doubt that a large number of unskilled foreign labourers made a strike much less difficult to organise and much more likely to be conducted with success. On the Royal Commission

    853
    they had evidence brought before them from the Lanarkshire coal mines, and the witnesses told them that foreign labour from Berlin and elsewhere had been systematically imported into that district because their labour was a little cheaper than the labour obtainable in the district. It seemed to him a wrong thing that these people should be placed in that position, and that the country should lose by emigration many valuable men. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, in putting forward his Amendment last year, spoke of men as having been vilely dismissed, and of a number of Spaniards and Poles having been introduced into the works, the English people being told that if they objected there would be a further importation of Spaniards and Poles. That threat was carried out, and there was abundant evidence that a large mass of this labour in Spain and Southern Italy was readily available. It had been imported into this country before, and might, and very likely would, be again on similar occasions in the future. He believed that at the time the labour problems of the Transvaal were being discussed and thought out, a large number of these men, Spaniards and Poles, were offered to mine owners at an incredibly low rate of wages—wages very little higher than those at present given to the Chinese. That fact was enough to show that the idea of employing European labour of this kind was not an illusory one—the question had been considered, and the labour was readily available. He supported the principle of this Amendment because he felt strongly that nothing could be more disadvantageous or, indeed, disastrous to this country than to lower generally the standard of living of the wage earners and working classes of this country. In the possibility of the importation of cheap foreign labour for the purpose of settling trade disputes to the disadvantage of one of the two parties to the dispute, he saw a menace to our prosperity and a very real and serious menace to the standard of comfort which the working classes possessed after so long and costly a struggle. They had the evidence, given before the Royal Commission, of a gentleman, who was admitted to be a good authority on
    854
    this question, the Rev. Mr. Davis, Rector of Spitalfields. That gentleman described as typical, and not at all exceptional, the case of a man in the tailoring trade with a wife and three children whose earnings were 7s. a week. People of that kind could be imported at any time when there was a trade dispute, and such a thing would obviously mean disaster to our working classes. No cheapness to the consumer could compensate for the bad effect on the producer which the low wage standard of 7s. a week would bring about. On the grounds of national health, and of what had been described as the physical deterioration of the people, this question had to be dealt with. We had little to depend upon now in our great and unequal struggle with the industrial world except the general physical condition of our people, and he did not see how we were to retain that, or improve the position our people were now in, if at any time there was to be undercutting in the manner he had described. It might be said that the logical effect of the argument he put forward was that a national standard should be set up, and that all employers should be compelled to pay a certain rate of wage, independent of any competition from abroad; but he had never taken that attitude. It seemed to be an impossible one. An industrial struggle within the limits of any given country should be fought out by the citizens of that country, and the importation of foreign labour in order to settle a trade dispute to the disadvantage of one of the parties to the dispute should be regarded as a foul blow and ought not to be permitted. It was with the hope that legislation would be promoted to prevent that foul blow from being struck that he put forward the Amendment. He hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite, however much they might question the merits of the Amendment, would not question the sincerity of his motives in moving it, and he did not think they would. He begged to move.
    SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he wished to second the Amendment. Representing as he did a large working-class constituency, and also being one of the officials of the Alien Emigration Society which initiated the Bill to prevent undesirable aliens

    855
    coming to this country, he desired that this logical consequence of that Act should pass into law. While trying to pass the Bill through Committee the Unionist Party were accused of bringing in the measure for window-dressing purposes, and of not being in earnest. He desired to show to-night at all events that they were in earnest and wished this matter to be carried through. He pointed out that in the United States the first Alien Immigration Act passed did not possess this charm, and that in a very short time it was found necessary to amend it.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But we humbly express our regret that Your Majesty's Speech contains no reference to the exclusion from this country of foreign contract labour during times of trades disputes.'"—(Sir William Evans-Gordon.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): The hon. and gallant Member certainly succeeded in dissembling his tone in regard to his proposal under two hostile votes delivered last July, as he assured us he had always been in favour of it, and that he only voted against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) because he did not wish to wreck the Aliens Bill. I should like to ask the hon. Member whether, supposing the late Government still occupied these benches, he would move this Amendment to the Address and ask them to accept it.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I certainly would do so, and I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that I moved ah Amendment to the Address against my own side, which was the means of bringing to the front the Alien question. A Royal Commission was appointed on my Amendment to the Address of 1902.
    MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: As the hon. and gallant Member was prepared to vote against his own Government on the Amendment it is rather difficult to see why he did not propose it
    856
    last year. It was a question of great interest; but I am not going into that at all. When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil brought forward his Amendment in July, at both the Committee stage and the Report stage I voted in favour of the Amendment, and the Prime Minister also voted for it, as well as the great bulk of hon. Gentlemen who were then on the Opposition side of the House. There are, as we all know, arguments for and against this proposal. There was a considerable discussion on the point last July, and I cannot understand why the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he had a chance of putting this principle into the Aliens' Bill, did not make use of that opportunity. He now comes forward and blames us, and proposes practically a vote of censure upon us for not putting this proposal into the King's Speech this session, when he knows perfectly well that legislation with regard to it is impossible—perfectly impossible, for the simple reason that we cannot do everything at once. We have been in office a very short time, and have had a general election since we were put in, and we are now about to deal with many important questions. It is too soon altogether to re-open the question of the Aliens Act, and the hon. Gentleman very well knows that it is out of our power at the present time to propose any such legislation as he suggests. The hon. and gallant Member did not vote for the proposal during the passage of the Aliens Bill, and he gave as his excuse that he did not wish to risk the passage of the Bill. I remember at that time it was said by the late Home Secretary that it was not germane to the Bill. Why was it not? The Bill dealt with various questions. The principle on which the right hon. Gentleman opposite acted was that the Bill should exclude undesirables, and many classes were excluded, such as diseased persons, lunatics, and the very poor. But why not exclude undesirable labour, if labour is undesirable? On what argument could the hon. Gentleman fairly exclude this question from the purview of that Bill? No; the hon. and gallant Member did not intend his Motion on this ground. I must remind the House of something more. For the last ten years right

    857
    hon. and Gentlemen on the other side of the House have declaimed, in season and out of season, on the importance of dealing thoroughly with this Aliens question. For nine years they neglected it, and in the tenth year they brought in a Bill which they pressed through the House, and on such slender foundation did they stand that the hon. Gentleman said it would have risked the passage of the measure if he had endeavoured to carry the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. And now the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to censure us because we do not and cannot do what the Unionists refused to do last July when they had the chance. The House knows perfectly well that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, and I presume hon. Gentlemen opposite do not intend to press it to a division. It would be ungrateful after the support we gave to this principle. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows well that the great majority on this side would support the Government in rejecting this Amendment, though most of us are in favour of the principle which underlies it. Is he then going to force us, knowing that, and having regard to the confession of his own exigencies last July, to vote against his Amendment? We cannot accept his Amendment at the present time, and as regards the future, I have no doubt it will come up for consideration on a more suitable occasion. I do not know whether the Aliens Act will come under the purview of this House, but it may be that amendment may have to be made in one direction or another, and if, and when, that opportunity arises, then will be an excellent opportunity for considering this question.
    MR. CROOKSsaid he was delighted that the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney should have thought fit to bring forward his proposal. It only showed what a sobering effect a general election had on the mind. He remembered that the everlasting cry of the hon. and gallant Member and his friends was to clean something off the slate, and they started wiping this off the slate immediately after putting it on. He wondered if the majority of the hon. and gallant Member's Party had been maintained the House would have heard
    858
    a word on this question. It was very wonderful how people changed. He supposed that they might expect the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to vote for this Amendment. He did not want to say the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind, but he remembered reading a speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which, in reply to a question as to why he did not vote for this particular Resolution, he said it was not germane to the Bill. As a matter of fact the Act was an absolute fraud, and he himself stated distinctly when it was before the House that it would not do anything to promote that for which the hon. Member was honoured. Unfortunately a record was kept of other utterances, and he remembered the hon. Member's asking whether they could prove that this Bill would be used as an instrument for introducing cheap labour, and he replied that he thought it would be so used. Around the East End the hon. Member declared that this Bill was going to stop sweating, get rid of slums, and stop rack-renting. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean voted against the Second Reading and took a few hon. Members with him into the lobby, with the result that some of the people who believed what the hon. Member for Stepney said waited for him (the hon. Member for Woolwich) on the railway platform and threatened him with a little personal violence. What a wonderful measure it had proved! All it had done was to provide a few soft jobs for people. A little deaf and dumb girl had been kept out last week under this wonderful Act. There was another case: to-day a refugee in danger had asked for the asylum of Britain, which had always stood for the right of asylum. It had been said that wherever the British flag was unfurled there was liberty. That used to be so, but it was altered by the late Government. The present Government had started cleaning the slate, but it would take a long time. Many hon. Members went down to their constituencies on the passing of this Act and laid in a stock of fireworks to celebrate the event, but those fireworks were wasted, because the people soon discovered that the time of the House

    859
    had been wasted on a fraud of a Bill. The rich people could buy their way in, but they would not admit a man like Mazzini. He hoped the Opposition were proud of that state of things, but he was ashamed of it. When the measure was before the House an attempt was made by the Labour Members to prevent its being used as a means of procuring blacklegs to lower wages in this country, but they were defeated. The Act had not kept out a single alien who would have come into competition with labour here. Seven persons had been kept out, and five of them would have dropped down dead had they been allowed to come ashore. The late Member for King's Lynn asked how the examination would take place, and he was told that they would be examined in a building on shore. And then came the further question, "After that what then?" and the answer was, "They would not allow them to land." It wanted a very clever Government to do a thing like that. He did not think the present Government could equal that in any circumstances. The people who promoted Bills ought to know their real effect. The position of the Labour Members was that some of the Members of this House had decided to bring in a Bill on this matter, and they expected it to pass as an unopposed measure. Surely there would not be found an hon. Member on the Opposition benches who would oppose it alter what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said at question time, and he expected the hon. Member for Stepney and hon. Members opposite who voted with him on this particular question in the last Parliament would vote solidly in favour of the Bill which was about to be introduced. The Act wanted amending in a variety of ways, and at the proper time he should urge the Home Secretary to consider the way in which poor people at the present time were compelled to live. These aliens were brought in by an association from countries where they gave too much protection to the rich and not enough to the poor. They could not catch old sparrows with chaff like that. That was a question which had to be grappled with. Dwellings in some districts became more and more crowded,
    860
    and the more they were crowded the more they were rack rented. In Spital-fields he had known poor people living in coal cellars at 1½d. per night. He held it should be a criminal offence on the part of the sanitary authorities not to put a stop to that. Would the members of the late Government and their supporters join in assisting to putdown the system of sweating? The last Government gave out contracts for cap making for the Navy at prices which it would not pay any decent woman to work for. There was a system of contracting and sub-contracting and sub-contracting again which should be stopped. But the people who did that class of work were not on the register, and he supposed they were not worth considering or worrying about. It was idle to make excuses for not safeguarding the interests of the workmen of Stepney in last year's Act. They knew now that the Act was a mere makeshift for killing time. He and his friends said so at the time. His description for what was done last year was that the whole of the British people were bluffed by the Government doing nothing at all. Week after week they sat on these benches praying and beseeching the Government to do something for the people, and pointing out to them that the greatness of the Empire did not—
    MR. SPEAKER: A review of last session is hardly relevant to this Amendment.
    MR. CROOKS: I am obliged for the correction, but we are really discussing a Bill of last year. I stand rebuked.
    MR. SPEAKER: I said "a review of last session."
    MR. CROOKS: Thank you, Sir. I think last session's proceedings have been very properly dealt with by the electors of this country and I will not go into them. As lovers of the poor he and his friends had sympathy with the Amendment, but they were not going to vote for it. They were going to introduce a Bill which would, he hoped, make the law on this matter what they desired, They would vote against this Amendment, and they were willing to go into

    861
    every constituency in the country and state their reason for doing so. He was perfectly sure that the industrial community would be with thorn on that occasion. Some of the points with which they wished the Home Secretary to deal were sweating, overcrowding, and rents—if that could possibly be done by the introduction of a Fair Rent Bill. He appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Woolwich has made the important statement that it is the intention of himself and his colleagues to bring in a Bill dealing with this subject, and that being the case I certainly do not see that my hon. friend need press his Amendment. We shall be able to say what we have to say when the hon. Member brings in his Bill. The reason why I personally am anxious that this matter should be discussed and why I would be glad to see the Bill is that it seems to me by itself to indicate a perfectly illogical proceeding. It appears to me and has always appeared to me to be perfectly illogical and inconsistent to prohibit the immigration of these alien labourers and at the same time to allow the free import of alien goods. The hon. Member has said that during last session he sat praying and beseeching the Government which, then sat on the Treasury Bench to do something for the people and that nothing was done. Now he has his opportunity. Let him pray and beseech a Government more powerful than the last, and by the time the next general election comes round let us see what account he will give of its answer to his prayers.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDONsaid that in deference to the request made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and in view of the fact that a Bill was to be introduced by the hon. Member for Woolwich and his friends, he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.

    EROSION OF THE COASTS.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONrose to move an Amendment representing to His Majesty that the serious encroachments of the sea on our coasts call for the immediate attention of the Govermment.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question (19th February), "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses, of Parliament."—(Mr. Dickinson.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid when the House rose he had just commenced to move the Amendment standing in his name dealing with the encroachments of the sea. It was a question of the utmost importance, as the sea was encroaching on the coast in many parts of the United Kingdom at an alarming rate. In Holderness it was a very serious and grave question. From the seaside town of Bridlington to as far as Spurn Head the sea had swept away the land at a very rapid rate; as much as four yards of land were swept away last year. He did not raise this as a party question, but he spoke on behalf of many parts of the United Kingdom and was glad to say that he had the support of many Members situated on the opposite benches. They wished to induce the Government

    863
    to come to their assistance and to give financial assistance if possible. The law of the land and modern decisions in Courts of Justice were both on their side, going to show that it was obligatory on the Crown to prevent inroads being made upon the land by the sea. The Board of Trade returns showed that the acreage of the country was gradually diminishing; every year we lost a tract of land the size of Gibraltar. In thirty-three years, from 1867 to 1900, the acreage showed a diminution of over 182,000 acres, although the land reclaimed from the sea was included. He could not help thinking the present system was an unfair one. All the land reclaimed became Crown property, but, whilst receiving any revenue derived from it, it did nothing itself for the protection of our coast. In his constituency they had an excellent example. A very large tract of land had there been reclaimed from the estuary of the Humber, known by the name of Sunk Island, and it brought in to the Crown a revenue of something like £10,000 per year. They thought that a portion of this sum ought to be expended in defending the east coast from the ravages of the North Sea. Whilst speaking on the subject he wished to give grave warning to the President of the Board of Trade. It was absolutely necessary to maintain the road leading to Spurn Lighthouse, which was joined to the land by an embankment three or four miles in length. That embankment had to be maintained by the Board of Trade, but the Board of Trade defences were at the present time in a very bad position. The sea was likely to break through the main road, and he could assure the President of the Board of Trade that a very large sum would have to be spent in repairing the damage. There was an old saying that a "stitch in time saves nine," and he thought it would be well if the President of the Board of Trade looked into the state of the defences. If he did he would find them in a shocking condition. In Italy the State shared with the people of the district the cost of sea defence. In Belgium the State had built large sea defences entirely at its own cost, and had in many other cases contributed
    864
    large sums towards the maintenance of the sea defences, the national grant in that country between 1902 and 1904 being no less than £1,000,000 per annum. In France also the State contributed large sums. At present in this country the cost of protecting our shores from the sea fell upon the individual landowner or upon the parish or township where the inroad might be taking place. The result had been entirely unsatisfactory, local effort to cope with the difficulty having absolutely failed. It was not for him to offer suggestions for schemes, and he did not know whether the President of the Board of Trade had any scheme for dealing with the matter; it would be best for the right hon. gentleman to discuss the subject with experts. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have seen the reports of the important Conference which took place in London on February 6th. Those reports showed conclusively that this was a national matter, which ought to receive national assistance. The difficulty was to persuade the nation to give assistance. He had not raised the question in any Party spirit or with any idea of personal advantage, because land in which he was interested had no connection whatever with this matter. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade in his reply would be able to hold out a hope that it was the intention of the Government to do something. Perhaps he might be able to see his way to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter, to see what damage was done, and to report as to the best method of effectually dealing with it. It had been said that the Government intended to find work for the unemployed, and he could not imagine a better or a more beneficial mode than that they should be put to the task of defending our foreshore. He maintained that it was the duty of the Crown to protect our shores from attacks from the sea just as much as it was their duty to protect them from attacks by enemies. He thanked the House for listening to him, and begged to move.
    MR. LUKE WHITEseconded the Amendment. He declared that the question had

    865
    become a national one, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would make some official inquiry into it. The matter was one which required their earnest attention. A great many of the local authorities had done much in order to protect our coasts from the erosion of the sea, expending large sums of money in that direction. The town of Bridlington had spent no less than £100,000 in order to protect the town from the inroads of the sea, and this had placed an enormous burden upon the local ratepayers. In this respect he would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade as to the period allowed for the repayment of loans raised for the erection of sea walls and sea defences. He considered that where the defences were of a permanent character a longer period for repayment should be allowed local authorities than the scale which existed at present? This was a serious question to those who were trying to do their best to stop the inroads of the sea, and he certainly thought something might be done to encourage local authorities by making better provision for the repayment of loans than was allowed them by the present short terms. Bridlington some thirty years ago obtained a loan, and the period for repayment allowed was fifty years; but seven or eight years ago they applied for a loan for works which were of a permanent character and they only obtained a period of twenty-five years. That was a very short period for works of a permanent character. He earnestly trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would seriously consider the matter. It was one which affected the country as a whole, and it particularly affected the ratepayers along our sea coast. It ought to be attended to, and he trusted that some official inquiry by experts would be made. He hoped local authorities would not only be assisted by the Government by advice and in a pecuniary sense, but that the Government would do something to place the matter upon a national basis so that all the local authorities might know their position.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, But we humbly represent to Your Majesty
    866
    that the serious encroachments of the sea on our coast call for the immediate attention of His Majesty's Government.'"—(Mr. Stanley Wilson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added.'
    MR. H. H. MARKSsaid that as he represented a constituency which was one of the chief sufferers from the great and growing evil of sea erosion, and one of the chief victims of the ever-recurring expense which that evil entailed, he ventured to address a few words to the House. He recognised that it would be wholly unreasonable to expect that this question, so long neglected by so many Governments, should have found a place in the programme of the present Government, in these days of its tenderest youth, not to say its toddling infancy. They must all recognise that the Government had a large, varied, and ambitious programme, and if the question raised by the Amendment had involved any consideration of legislation he would have had some hesitation in rising to support it; but he ventured to suggest that this was not necessarily a question of legislation. It was, it seemed to him, rather a question of sympathetic administration, and he looked with some confidence to the President of the Board of Trade to give it that sympathetic consideration, first of all because he knew the broad mind with which the right hon. Gentleman approached all matters of public interest, and secondly, because he remembered that, according to the proverb, new brooms swept clean. The operations of nature were responsible in a large measure for the erosion of our coasts, but a great deal of that erosion was due to the defective methods which had been employed to deal with the evil. A large portion of the land which had been allowed to be washed away by the sea had been so washed away through the ignorance or negligence of the owners of the land. Another trouble was that the local or other authorities had been in the habit of employing their own officer to design and carry out the defence works; and in many cases the men so employed had no practical knowledge of the subject. He could instance experiences

    867
    at Lowestoft and Morecambe Bay. It was here and in this direction that he suggested that the Government could be helpful. He was not going so far as to suggest that the cost of maintaining our coasts from the invasion of the sea should fall entirely on the National Exchequer. He would like it. All who represented sea - board constituencies would like it. But he fully recognised that as things were at present and as things were likely to be for some time to come that demand could not be granted. But there were things the Government might do. The Government might assist to provide the funds for the necessary defensive works, at low interest, on easy terms of repayment, secured, in the case of private owners, on the land, and in the case of municipal owners, on the rates of the local area, and subject always to the condition that the works should in every case be carried out by an engineer of experience in this work and approved by Government. Such a course as that would ensure some organised method in the treatment of the evil of which they complained, and, he felt confident, proper and permanent work. So far as he was concerned, speaking on behalf of the local authorities in his own constituency, whilst they would like to ask for all they wanted, they thought it prudent and discreet to ask for what they thought they might reasonably hope to get, namely, some action on the part of the Government recognising the necessity for uniformity in coast defence work, and for the direction of those works by some one of competent authority and of competent experience. If those things were forthcoming, and if, combined with them were offers of reasonable terms on which to raise the funds required for the works and reasonable periods within which to repay the advances made, whilst they would not have removed the evil—which unfortunately was not removable—they would at any rate have mitigated in some considerable measure the burden which at present weighed heavily and with increasing oppressiveness on some of the most important districts of the country.
    MR. G. BARINGdrew attention to a very important con-
    868
    ference held in London a short time ago of the representatives of local authorities of many places on the coast, which came to the unanimous decision that it was time the Government intervened and took some strong action in order to come to the assistance of local authorities in the matter of sea defences. There were most alarming reports of the disastrous action of the sea on the east coast, and the conference was unanimously of opinion that the financial cost entailed was far too great to be borne by the local authorities. At the town of Sandown they complained that the action of the sea was assisted by the action of the War Office, which had been carting away tons and tons of the foreshore for the purpose of constructing some forts in the neighbourhood: that had had the effect of greatly weakening the sea defences. Only a short time ago the sea washed away a large part of the road in that locality, and nearly separated the town and foreshore from the other part of the island. Then there was a disaster at Freshwater, where the patriotic ratepayers had raised the funds necessary to repair the sea defences. But matters of this kind could not be left to private individuals or parish authorities. The Isle of Wight authority to deal with this question was the rural district council. That was a comparatively poor body; the rateable value was low, and it was quite impossible for them to deal with this question. He ventured to suggest that it would be possible for a systematic inspection to be made of the coast line, and a schedule might be prepared showing where the sea was doing most damage and where immediate assistance ought to be given. He quite recognised that for the past ten years there had been very little money for this or any other work, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was a matter to be dealt with at the earliest possible moment. He was certain of a sympathetic reply, but he submitted that the House was entitled to more than that. The sea was active, and it was necessary that something should be done at the earliest possible moment. If his suggestion were acted upon and the report sent to the right hon. Gentleman he was sure that the President of the Board

    869
    of Trade would see the necessity of something being done immediately.
    MR. BECKETTsaid he made no apology for adding a few words on this important question. The constituency he represented had perhaps the longest coastline in England, and he would scarcely be performing his duty to the inhabitants of that district if he did not support the Amendment. In the case of waste land and agricultural land the damage was serious enough, and he was fully aware of the enormous cost which would be entailed by a proper system of sea defence in such cases. That cost had been estimated by eminent authorities to reach no less a figure than £25,000 per mile. In addition to that a charge at the lowest estimate of 10 per cent. on that amount would be necessary to provide for interest on the borrowed money and the cost of up-keep. But there was a far more serious side to this question. He spoke now of the case of numerous small fishing villages, whose houses were being gradually swept away and whose inhabitants were poor men who had a hard struggle to live. These men had to fight the sea to earn their daily bread and to contend with the same element in order to prevent their very dwellings from being engulfed. Fashionable watering-places had many rich visitors in their seasons who contributed to the funds subscribed by local effort for defraying the cost of sea defence; but it was a very different thing in the case of small fishing villages where the rate assessment added little to the local revenue, and where such defence as they could make against the encroachments of the sea had to come out of private pockets. He knew of one small village which had spent £5,000, provided by private persons, during the past twelve years in sea defence. He supported the idea that urban and district councils should be assisted to borrow money on easier terms for providing against sea encroachments. At present where the district councils took any steps in the matter they had to petition the Local Government Board for sanction to borrow money. Then the Local Government Board sent down an inspector to report. If the inspector
    870
    reported favourably the council had to go into the open market and borrow the money on the best terms they could obtain for ten or fifteen years. That term was too short, and the burdens were too heavy. In the case of other public works the Public Works Loans Commission advanced the money at a rate not exceeding 3½ per cent. and the term for repayment ran up to fifty years. The Local Government Board should take into consideration whether they could not make arrangements to enable urban and district councils to borrow money on the same conditions. He wished to emphasise what had fallen from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. He had no desire to make this a Party question. He admitted its difficulty, and, although the cost might be high, that was rather an additional reason for inducing the Government to find a proper solution of the problem. His Majesty's Ministers had announced their intention of providing the cost of repatriating the Chinese who had not left their homes unwillingly. Surely it was not too much to ask them to do something for those Englishmen who did not desire to leave their homes, but whose homes showed an undesirable tendency to leave them.
    MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he had to thank the hon. Member for Holderness for having brought this very important matter before the Government. The seconder of the Amendment had spoken about permanent defensive works having been erected on various parts of our coasts. They had, unfortunately, not been permanent. The truth was that many of those works had been badly engineered, and almost invited the sea to knock them down. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment that one of the most important subjects to be considered by the House would be the question of finding employment for those unfortunate people who could not find it for themselves; and he imagined that Parliament could engage in no better work than in organising employment to make good the erosion of our sea coasts. He noticed that Lord Rayleish had made a proposal to build up defences against sea encroachments on the Essex

    871
    coast, which he was glad to see the Central Body for the unemployed in London had accepted. He represented a seaboard constituency where funds had been provided by private subscription for defence against sea erosion, because all the money which could be raised by the rates had to be devoted to harbour construction and other purposes. He did not ask the Government to give money for sea defence, but he hoped they would endeavour with the aid of the Local Government Board so to organise the Central Relief Fund which had been subscribed for the unemployed that it might be utilised for works to provide against sea encroachments. He believed if that were done, and if the local authorities were allowed to raise money on such terms as had been already advocated, a work of great utility would be accomplished.
    SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that this was a question which deeply affected his constituency. The whole of the northern boundary was washed by the Bristol Channel with a 34-foot rise of tide, and exposed to westerly gales and heavy seas. He perfectly agreed that these sometimes prevented Welshmen from coming over to endeavour to alienate his supporters, but he would rather fight their opinions than fight against the sea. The coast line in his division was composed partly of crumbling cliff, but the real defence against sea encroachment was the shingle. That shingle was always moving from west to east, although they were able to keep it up by means of groins. Some of the owners of the foreshore, however, allowed the shingle to be carried over to Wales, as had been done near Bridgwater. He believed that the Board of Trade could, on application, prevent the removal of the shingle. He knew that in the case of his own property he was successful in preventing it. The question was whether district councils could apply to the Board of Trade to grant a prohibition order to the foreshores of a district council lying further to the west over which they themselves had no jurisdiction. The prohibition should be extended to the whole line of coast in danger by sea encroachment. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he would
    872
    consider the question of appointing a small departmental committee to consider the whole matter, to take expert advice, and, having got that advice, would he on the application of any recognised local authority, be it county council or district council, send down an official of the Board of Trade to make inquiry and deal with particular local divisions. It might be said that what was a most excellent plan of sea defence in one case was useless in another, and that was why so much money had been lost along the coast. If the House could have some assurance, such as had been suggested, from the President of the Board of Trade, they would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. H. BEAUMONTsaid he hoped on rising for the first time to address the House to receive its kindly forbearance. He asked this for two reasons; first, because he did not intend to inflict upon the House a lengthy speech, and second, because he was speaking in the interests of his constituents, to whom this was a matter of great importance. He should like to emphasize all that had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Holderness, and to back up the speech of the Member for Isle of Wight. He submitted that this was a question of as much importance to those who lived inland as to those who lived by the sea shore. Therefore, it was a national matter, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give money for the erection of sea defences, so that the whole expense should pot be thrown on the local bodies.
    MR. SUMMERBELLsaid he wished to give a few facts to show the ravages which had been made by the sea in his own district. During the past ten years the sea cliffs had vanished to the extent of between twenty and thirty feet, and the beach had been lowered to the extent of ten feet, so that the sewers had been injured by the inrush of the sea, involving repairs which had cost considerable sums of money. Groins had been put up, and a seawall built, but during the past four years these had been seriously damaged, and further sums of money

    873
    would have to be spent upon them. On the south side of the town which he represented there was formerly a splendid stretch of sand where the inhabitants used to enjoy themselves, but that had gone. He would not urge that the money of the country should be expended for the purpose of preserving the land of private landowners from sea encroachment. Far from it; but there was a duty on the Government to prevent some of the things which had already been indicated. The lowering of the beach had been brought about by the taking away of sand and stone for building purposes. These materials had been removed because the Government had permitted the landowners to have a particular right to the beach. If the Government could not recall the concessions already made, he trusted that they would not renew the permission to carry away sand, shingle and stones, from the foreshores, a permission which had been availed of in some cases to the extent of 500 tons per week. As to the unemployed problem, that was a question which must receive immediate attention Numbers of men who were unemployed to-day might be employed on this work by the Government, and it would be a benefit to the nation before many years had passed away.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree that this is a question of importance and urgency. I also agree with my hon. friend opposite that this is not a Party question, but then hon. Members opposite never raised it when they were in office. There is no doubt that some districts have suffered very considerably from the encroachments of the sea, although in other parts the sea is retiring from the old coast line. Unquestionably, coast defence is one of the most important subjects for the consideration of any Government. One town in my own constituency has suffered very severely. It is very difficult for a locality with a small population and low rateable value to protect the coast properly without increasing the burdens of the ratepayers beyond an extent which can be borne. Therefore, I think this is a question of national interest. The right hon Baronet has asked for protection from the political currents that flowed into his district from the direction
    874
    of Wales. I think the right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is well able to protect himself. There remains the question of the removal of sand and shingle which left the land unprotected at Bridgewater and elsewhere. I promise to look into that matter. In fact, the policy of the Board of Trade in recent years has I been to refuse permits to individuals to remove sand and shingle from the shore. When the House comes to consider on a large scale this matter of protecting our coasts it resolves itself, as nearly all questions do, into a question of money. Suggestions have come from all parts of the House to subsidise local authorities from the Imperial Exchequer in regard to this and many other matters. But this Government, as the hon. Member for Thanet has said, is in its infancy or still in its swaddling clothes, and their moneybox is not very full at this moment. We have not the money to spend on all those schemes on which we would like to spend money. I would remind hon. Members that the Government, has been asked to repeal the coal tax. Next, to throw the whole burden of education upon the taxes—which would mean a trifle of about £7,000,000. Then someone has suggested old age pensions. That is only another £26,000,000. Other suggestions are that light dues and high roads should be put on the taxes. This runs up to just a trifling sum of £50,000,000. These things show how difficult the problem is. Nevertheless, the Government recognise the importance of this matter, and they agree tint the case is one for inquiry. A good many suggestions—some valuable suggestions—as to inquiry, inspection, and the employment of engineers of experience have been thrown out in the course of debate. These suggestions ought to be inquired into. The Government have decided to have an inquiry in the form of a Royal Commission, which will extend not merely to coast defence, but to two or three other kindred subjects—such as waste lands and probably afforestation. The Government recognise the urgency of these questions and propose to appoint a Commission at an early date to inquire into the matter. I do not think anything is to be gained by very hasty action. After all, the sea has been at work for a good

    875
    many centuries, and I do not think it will act in such a way as to render precipitate action necessary. It is not for the purpose of putting off action that I make this proposal, but rather that we may devise what action shall be taken.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think we can complain of the tone which has been taken by the President of the Board of Trade. I represent a constituency which has a large seaboard. At St. Margaret's Bay the local authority has requested the Local Government Board to advance money in order to protect the bay from the ravages of the sea, and they have also subscribed liberally of their own money. In a matter of this sort I think some greater liberality might be shown than is now shown with regard to the length of time during which loans are repayable. I associate myself with the request that the Board of Trade should send competent engineers to advise localities. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter resolved itself into a question of money. I think this question of the defence of the sea coast might receive a little more attention than many of the other claims put forward. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is going to grant an inquiry into the subject, but I hope he will not associate too many subject? and that the first consideration will be given to this question of the erosion of the coast. I think we have got as much as we are likely to get from the Government considering the difficulties of the case, and I think my hon. friend might be satisfied with the assurance he has received, that the subject will be dealt with by inquiry without delay.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to address one or two observations to the House from the point of view of the Department for which I happen to be responsible in this House. All I can say is that so far as the facilitation of public inquiry is concerned, the Local Government Board will do its best in that direction. The question of long
    876
    or short periods for the repayment of loans is a very serious one, and one the Department would have to go into very carefully. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. friend has said, except that, so far as my Department is concerned, it will render the Board of Trade the sympathetic co-operation which such an important subject demands.
    MR. MCVEIGHsaid that with regard to private rights in foreshores he had known of many cases in which rights had been conferred upon individuals. Lord Annesley had for many years past to his knowledge been selling sand at 6d. a load from a foreshore with which he was acquainted, and the Crown actually proceeded to make an arrangement with Lord Annesley giving him rights in that foreshore. He had however got a clause inserted in the Act which prevented Lord Annesley from removing sand except at one point. He thought the Commission ought to have power to investigate the whole matter of the Board of Trade giving private property in foreshores to individuals. The second point he wished to put was whether the Commission would apply to Ireland which he urged it should do.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that after the sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYrose to move an Amendment expressing regret that no remedy had bean proposed to prevent the great want of employment which now existed. Speaking for a constituency which had many rich, but many more poor of the working class within its boundaries, he felt he would betray those who sent him to the House of Commons unless he entered a protest against the unruffled optimism of His Majesty's Government in regard to the trade of the country. We were told in the gracious Speech to congratulate ourselves upon the increase of our exports and imports as indicating

    877
    the sound and progressive condition of our industrial position. But it was somewhat remarkable that while the gracious Speech recorded the fact that there had been an increase of our exports and imports, not a syllable had fallen in this House or elsewhere from the Government to show sympathy with or any intention to remove, the anxieties and misery from which the unemployed suffered. On the contrary, any executive act of the present Administration had been rather directed to a different purpose. In the Return compiled by the President of the Local Government Board one could see only one intention and that was to alienate sympathy from the unemployed and avert executive action. If that statement was thought to be too strong, he was quite prepared to water it down so as to describe the Return as designed to create the impression that pauperism and unemployment were not so bad as some people thought. It was not his business to defend the Return, but what it showed was that the cost of the pauper was greater now than it was in 1849. It showed also that the number of outdoor paupers had actually and comparatively declined since 1849. But anybody who had the slightest acquaintance with the Poor Law system inaugurated sixty years ago could have guessed that fact. The Returns of unemployment, such as they were, were sufficient for his case, and he would quote from those statements the steady increase of adult able-bodied indoor paupers from ·8 per thousand in 1874 to 1·1 per thousand in 1900 and 1·3 per thousand in 1905. Outdoor relief (able-bodied) had dropped from 11·7 per thousand in 1849 to 2·1 per thousand in 1905. Anybody, however, who had given any attention to the question knew that the system which in 1849 was slowly getting to work was bound to reduce the outdoor class. That was its great principle. The figures proved that persons who in 1849 were considered suitable for relief were not now considered suitable. What was the condition of these persons to-day? The figures provided no evidence that these persons were flourishing citizens. It was notorious that for some years past the vagrant class had been increasing. In short, the Return amounted to a declaration that after sixty years of free imports, cheap
    878
    food, big loaves, trade union wages, temperance movements and reform, we were as we were in the matter of genuine poverty among the able-bodied. Indeed, we were probably worse, seeing that the 1·3 of able - bodied indoor paupers per thousand in 1905 was the outcome of a more rigorous system than the 1·5 per thousand of 1849. He denied that the figures as to imports and exports indicated that our industries were in a sound and progressive condition. Taking Trade Union figures, the statistics of the Statutory Unemployment Committees, and the results of independent researches into the social condition of the people, they showed that the state of our trade was far from satisfactory. Our foreign trade, they were told, had shown an increase. But had the wages of our workmen increased in proportion? That, was the real test, not what profit the trader got, but what wages the British workman got, and how many workmen got no wages at all. The Board of Trade Labour Gazette proved that one out of every twenty trade unionists could not find work in England or Scotland; and if that was so, what must be the condition of unskilled and unorganised labour, and this was what the Government called a sound and satisfactory state of things! There was, in connection with this subject, a useful, but much-derided, Act of Parliament—the Unemployed Act. At least it enabled us to form some estimate of unemployment, though any estimate so formed must fall short of the truth. According to the Board of Trade Labour Gazette, taking London alone, 42,093 persons had been registered as unemployed in the London area. Of these, 8,072 had been given employment-relief at wages barely sufficient to keep body and soul together. What had become of the other 34,000, who had not obtained employment relief? They had been left to starve or were forced into pauperism. In the year in which they were told to congratulate themselves upon the exceptional prosperity of British trade some 34,000 persons most of them willing wage-earners, not wastrels or ne'er-do-wells, were left to starve or go into the workhouses. Whilst there was no suggestion of a remedy for this evil from the Ministerial side of the House, at least they on the

    879
    Opposition side could claim to have a definite remedy. Unionists believed that a defensive tariff would enormously mitigate the evils of unemployment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite denounced tariff reform, but he believed he would live to see a repetition of what occurred in the first half of last century in regard to the Corn Laws, and that those who now opposed fiscal reform would be the very men to bring it in. There was another Party on the benches near him, the Labour Party, which had a remedy. It was simple and drastic—the re-adjustment of the relations between Labour and Capital. He believed that Unionists and those of the Labour Party would come to recognise that the policies of tariff reform and social reform were closely related—were, indeed, the counterpart of each other, and that what was wanted was more regulation of our foreign and home trade. That must make social reform and fiscal reform go hand in hand. They would get no remedy for the unemployed problem unless it was approached in the right spirit. He believed the President of the Local Government Board and his colleagues would never solve the problem so long as they gazed complacently at Blue books while the people perished, and offered figures and Returns to starving men. The Government did not even handle their own figures properly. They imagined that the increase of imports and the increase of exports according to recent Returns showed an equally satisfactory position. The most significant feature of these trade Returns was that the imports exceeded the exports. Manufactured imports meant less work for the British workman. The excess of imports over exports meant a dead loss to the workmen of this country. The Free Traders declared that the excess of imports represented interest on our foreign investments abroad. Yes, while the rich man derived his profit from abroad, the poor man was unemployed at home.
    MR. CROOKS: Let the rich man share it then.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would give the opinion of a writer who he thought would meet with respect. A Socialist
    880
    writer, Mr. R. B. Suthers, in last week's Clarion said—
    "If the capitalists invest abroad, their capital will find employment for the foreigner, (or the co'onist), and the interest on the investments comes home in the form of goods and may throw British workmen out of employment."
    That was why they said a defensive tariff would enormously mitigate the evils of unemployment. The Government, they knew, would not regard a defensive tariff as a solution of the unemployed problem or as conducing to the general improvement of our trade; on the contrary, they thought our present trade system was perfect. What was the Government's alternative remedy to remove the evils of unemployment? Were they prepared to follow the lines laid down by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil? He saw no indication of it. The only crumb that could be gathered from the Government was in the last paragraph of the Speech from the Throne in a suggested amendment of the Unemployed Act. Those who were in the last Parliament knew that the rank and file, as well as the leaders of the then Opposition described that measure as a mere tinkering with a great subject. If an Amendment, poked away in the general list of measures which might or might not be dealt with, was their solution of the unemployed problem, then the House could form an accurate measure of the Government's sympathy with the unemployed struggling poor of this country. But there might be some promise in the record of the President of the Local Government Board. On examining that record he was bound to say that it was far from re-assuring. [Laughter.] That laughter showed that the memory of the House, as of the public, was short. When the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Unemployed Committee of 1893 he opposed the proposal of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that Government grants should be given to local authorities for relief works, the right hon. Gentleman then declaring that "such a policy would debauch workers for a generation." On the same Committee the President of the Local Government Board took the view, which was supported by the present Prime Minister, that those compelled to seek employment relief in times of exceptional distress should be deprived of their votes. Some

    881
    would say he had quoted from the salad days of the right hon. Gentleman, to he would now take his actions since he had become a Minister. Almost his first act was to inform a deputation of the London unemployed that it was only reasonable that workmen employed under the Act should receive less than the standard rate of wages. [Cries of "No."] All that he could say was that the words were taken from The Times report. If the right hon. Gentleman did not say that those who claimed such relief under the Act were to receive less than the standard rate of wages, did he declare they should receive the standard rate of wages, and if he did not say ei her of those things, what did he say? He also wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman could reconcile his statement that no man was worth more than £500 a year with the fact that he took £2,000 per annum as President of the Local Government Board in order not to become a blackleg. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
    MR. CROOKSasked if the words which he overheard the hon. Gentleman say, "I will go on speaking till all is blue" were strictly Parliamentary.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYagain endeavoured to address the House, but there were further cries of "Withdraw," and the hon. Member then appealed to the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind hon. Gentlemen that by making use of this form of preventing an hon. Member from speaking they are using rather a dangerous weapon which may be used against themselves. If the hon. Member for Hoxton had said anything which was unparliamentary I should have called upon him to withdraw it. I understand that the expression he used was a quotation and was not an original observation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the observation he made was taken from a report which he read in a newspaper of a declaration made by the President of the Local Government Board. The state-
    882
    ment he quoted was that the right hon. Gentleman took a salary of £2,000 as President of the Local Government Board because he would not be a blackleg, although he had declared no man was worth more than £500 a year. If he had misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman of course he would be most ready to apologise as he had no desire to make any personal observation. But he claimed he had quoted his words accurately. He had known the right hon. Gentleman for more than twenty years and it was not his desire to try to make capital out of anything of a personal character. He wanted to show that the right hon. Gentleman's public speeches did not convey any confidence to those who took an interest in the unemployed problem. The next step that the right hon. Gentleman took on acceding to office, was when the Tottenham local authority applied for sanction to employ the unemployed upon a swimming bath. The right hon. Gentleman refused official sanction to the arrangement. [Cries of "No."] Then he should be glad to be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman. Again, the actual word the right hon. Gentleman used to the Lambeth Guardians, who desired to acquire land for a farm colony, were—
    "The history of previous experience does not warrant the assumption that the proposal of the guardians is likely to be attended with that measure of success as would justify the large expenditure it would involve."
    This tenderness for the interests of the ratepayers' pockets was a new feature in the right hon. Gentleman's character. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the expenditure of public money for farm colonies for the unemployed was more profitable than running empty steamboats upon the Thames. Either the words of the right hon. Gentleman meant nothing, or they meant that he was against farm colonies altogether. The right hon. Gentleman could un-questionably claim that he had more drastic and heroic remedies for unemployment before the recent election. In his election address the right hon. Gentleman used the words—
    "A legal eight hours day is the best means of securing work for all."

    883
    He was not quoting from the right hon. Gentleman's revolutionary days, but from the time when he was a Cabinet Minister, and no Cabinet Minister surely would deceive his constituents by advocating that which he believed his colleagues would not allow him to introduce. There was nothing in the King's Speech about an eight hours day, and the House had a right to know whether it was part of the programme of His Majesty's Government or not. When a Minister of the Crown defined an eight hours day as the best means of providing work for all, and there were in London 40,000 men registered as unemployed, of whom 34,000 had received no work by employment relief, but were sent into pauperism or had to starve, the House had a right to know whether the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to his constituents was a mere attempt to get votes, or whether it was part of the policy of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. On his side of the House they were satisfied that all was not well with British trade and that all could not be well so long as the bitter cry of the workless workman confronted and shamed His Majesty's Ministers who tried to deceive the nation by cries of Chinese slavery and yet left the workmen of our country to starve. He begged to move.
    MR. HILLSformally seconded the motion.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But humbly to represent that whilst Your Majesty records with satisfaction the fact that the imports and exports of the country show a steady and accelerating increase, there is widespread misery among the labouring classes due to want of employment, and this House regrets that no remedy has been proposed in Your Majesty's gracious Speech to prevent the great want of employment which exists."—Mr. Claude Hay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words "be there added."
    MR. G. H.ROBERTSsaid that they of the Labour Party were keenly
    884
    alive to the problem of the unemployed, but they were not going to be a party to making the matter a peg on which to hang fiscal reform. They had a lively recollection of the fight that arose when the controversy was raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the suggestion of old age pensions was tacked to it so as to make fiscal reform attractive to the working classes of the country. The Labour representatives were well aware of the fact that unemployment was not peculiar to a free trade country, but was even more widely prevalent in a protectionist country. They were also aware that the largest unemployed army of workers in the world was Coxey's army in the United States. The Labour Party were glad to note that it was the intention of His Majesty's Ministers to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject in due course, and whilst they did not desire to embarrass the Government, they hoped no undue delay would be allowed. He entirely dissociated himself from the remarks of the previous speaker. He did not think anything was to be gained for the cause of the unemployed by making personal attacks upon the President of the Local Government Board. He thought it was bad policy to exploit the poverty of the masses in order to display vindictiveness towards a right hon. Gentleman whom they were pleased to know came from the class they were associated with, for they were glad to know that a member of the working class community was considered to be of sufficient fitness and capacity to occupy a seat in the Cabinet of the nation. During the election campaign, not merely for political purposes, they attempted to prove that unemployment would always be with them so long as industries were unregulated and disorganised as they were to-day. He went so far as to submit that while profit-making was the great end of those engaged in industry, so long would it be that large masses of their fellow men would be begging others to permit them to toil and be denied the possibility of utilising their labour to the best advantage. The Labour Members had affirmed that an eight hours day was necessary. At the present time there were railway servants

    885
    working twice eight hours per day, and they contended that these long hours were wrong and were one of the great causes of unemployment. If the proposals of the Government took the form of doing anything to regulate the hours of industry, then the Labour Party would be for giving them their wholehearted support. He hoped that when the Government drafted their Bill it would not follow the lines laid down by the late Government, under which so many inquisitorial questions, repugnant to the unemployed section of the community, had to be put. The Labour Party hoped that the fact of a man being out of work and willing to work would be a sufficient qualification for work being found for him. He hoped that the principle of fair wages would be constantly kept in view by the Government in all their proposals. He claimed that low wage; were to-day largely the cause of unemployment. How fiscal reform was going to remedy this they had no evidence to prove to their satisfaction. He knew that their trades unions had had to fight for every concession which had been made. He claimed, on behalf of those organisations, that, by increasing the wages of the working classes, they had enhanced their consuming power and in that way they had created an extra demand for labour and had to that extent alleviated the severity of the unemployed problem. They claimed that any remedy must have this end in view. They wanted a just and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country, so that no man woman, or child would be denied the right to exercise to the full the consuming power which was their inherent right. He believed that the Liberal Party were keenly concerned in this problem, but in any case the Labour Party did no intend to allow the problem to be exploited in the interest of fiscal legerdemain. They were willing to wait for the
    886
    Government proposals, having confidence in the fact that after what had been said they would be able to diagnose the desires and needs of the people, and he hoped those proposals would be of a tangible character and calculated to achieve the ends which they mutually had in view.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS): The hon. Member for Hoxton has placed on the notice Paper an Amendment in which he expresses regret that the Government is unconcerned with the widespread misery and destitution due to the want of employment. If the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to his Amendment, and to the scope that Amendment would have given him for a useful, impersonal, and practical speech, he might have added to a rather slender Parliamentary reputation. But the hon. Gentleman has used the opportunity, which might have been used in the interest of the poor and for the benefit of the unemployed, for the purpose of instructing and advising the Government, for wasting the time of the House with a réchauffé weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable references to the President of the Local Government Board. To notice them would be to dignify them; to reply to them would give them a substantiality which they lack; and the hon. Member will pardon me if I do not indulge in that recrimination that his attack might provoke—an attack which he must have founded on statements in newspapers, as ignorant of my past record on this subject as the hon. Member himself. But the Government has no right to pass over what is substantial in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The most substantial suggestion is that the Government display unruffled optimism about the condition both of trade and of the unemployed. If that be true—and it is not altogether true—that optimism is

    887
    shared by the overwhelming majority of the electorate of this kingdom, for they share the view that our exports are good and are increasing, that our exports are large and are improving. Curiously, in the very year that the hon. Gentleman and his tariff reform friends described England as a dying country with vanishing trade and disappearing industries, the heads of those industries stood up and unhesitatingly gave the retort courteous that they had an answer to every one of those statements. The hon. Member proceeded from his misrepresentation of imports and exports to the Return which, at the request of some hon. Members, I issued as a command Paper the other day. I am the more justified in issuing that Return when I find men who should know better telling the country that there are a million able-bodied men in our workhouses. I have a right to point out that that statement is inaccurate, being 8,223 per cent. wrong. Instead of a million able-bodied paupers there are less than 9,000 all told. The hon. Member suggested that that return was compiled to alienate sympathy from the unemployed. It is a remarkable fact that it was compiled mainly at the instigation of those social students who build upon fact so as to enable them to get a correct representation of the problem with which they have to deal. I will not allow any Member or any right hon. Gentleman, however important a posision he may occupy in public life, to impugn, without repudiation, the figures issued by our disinterested, neutral, impartial, and well-informed Civil servants, who in these matters are beyond fear and above reproach. What the hon. Member should have done, and has failed to do, is to show in what particular the Return is inaccurate, in what respect it has been cooked. Pending such proof, the Return issued under the signature of the distinguished head of the Local Government Board, Sir Samuel Provis, holds the field in spite of the grotesque insinuations of the hon. Member for Hoxton It
    888
    has been suggested that 1849 was a significant year with which to begin the Return. There was no choice. It is a curious coincidence that the first reliable Poor Law Return synchronises with the beginning of the free trade era. That is neither my fault nor the fault of the late Mr. Richard Cobden; and instead of its being a subject of reproach to the country that, whilst pauperism, indoor and outdoor, has diminished, the cost of maintaining paupers has increased, it is a subject for congratulation, because it shows that under free trade the Poor Law has been humanised, the workhouse is not the Bastille it used to be, and the hospitals of the old days—the free hospitals outside—are in no sense comparable with the Poor Law infirmaries of to-day, in which the treatment of patients is as good as they can get in the average general hospital supported by voluntary contributions. The fact is that the misery of mankind is not increasing. The sympathy of mankind is expanding, and in no respect is it better shown than in the kindly, humanitarian way in which in recent years the poor in workhouses and infirmaries have been treated. I admit with regret that the number of vagrants is increasing. But that is mainly due to mistaken and indiscriminate charity. Since taking my present office, it has been part of my duty in earning this £2,000 a year to make inquiries into this question, and whilst the hon. Member opposite, perhaps, has been otherwise more pleasantly and, probably, more profitably engaged, I have, in the "wee sma' hours ayont the twal," between twelve and five in the morning, been under Waterloo arch and in places where the poor congregate, endeavouring to obtain some insight into the means by which their lot can be ameliorated, and their numbers reduced. Then the hon. Member for Hoxton asked why I had not given any explanation of the Return we have issued in regard to the number of

    889
    able-bodied men who have been relieved by local authorities other than Poor Law guardians. There is only one reason, and it is that last year the figures were given in two reports, which are accessible to the hon. Member, as he would have known if he had given as much attention to this subject as he has to studying the interesting details of my autobiography. The number of men relieved by means of relief work by the local authorities last year was about 20,000. It is true, I regret to say, that pauperism to-day is higher than it was some years ago. There are 105,000 more indoor and outdoor paupers in England to-day than five years ago. Why? Because we have been wasting our substance on riotous living. There are 24,000 more indoor and outdoor paupers in London at this moment than five years ago. Why? Because in the last ten years£670,000,000, which, should have been spent on reproductive and remunerative works for our skilled and unskilled labourers, has been spent on fireworks in South Africa and other extravagant and futile expenditure for the delectation of mafficking Imperialists, and I must frankly say that the exhibition is not worth the money that has been spent upon it. I have one illustration of that point. I notice that the Irish Members are very properly asking for the amelioration of the lot of the labourers in Ireland. In twenty-eight years private enterprise and State effort has built 25,000 cottages for the Irish people, and those cottages have only cost the sum of money which the last Government spent on chasing the Mad Mullah in Somaliland. If that £4,500,000 had been spent in Ireland even as a free gift, Irish labourers would not have been coming into England as they are to-day and competing with English labourers. Irish bricklayers would not have been competing in the labour market, and that money would have been much more profitably employed. The hon. Member has made a statement
    890
    which, so far as it affects me, I brush aside. But he has made a reflection on the authors of the last Act and on the Labour Members who watched the progress of the Measure last session. The hon. Member has accused me of suggesting that the men who were employed on relief works set up under the Unemployed Workmen Act should be satisfied with less than the fair or current rate of wages. He ought to know that that statement is far from true. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was a member of a deputation, which included the Bishop of Stepney and the Rev. Russell Wakefield, to the Local Government Board; and he will, I am sure, confirm my statement that we insisted upon the current rate of wages being paid; and we properly insisted, as I ever shall insist, so long as I hold my present office, that for relief works under the Unemployed Workmen Act there must always be an incentive for the workmen to resume their normal industrial employment, but that that incentive should take the form not of lower wages per hour, but of fewer hours per day or fewer days per week, so that a man would have an opportunity of looking for his usual and natural employment. It is true that in 1893 and 1894 I said—and I have not changed my opinion materially—that it was a mistake for the Imperal Government to give localities doles and grants indiscriminately except with adequate supervision and control of the expenditure, which is very difficult with relief works. I said that in 1894, and what I have said I have said and adhere to. No doubt I have made a similar remark to that quoted by the hon. Member—that certain men are not worth more than £500 a year. I must have had the hon Member for Hoxton in my mind. As to the Tottenham case which has been quoted, Tottenham applied for a loan of £3,000 for certain recreation-ground work for the unemployed, and my predecessor facilitated the loan. The work was carried out in a way that indicated

    891
    lack of proper supervision, and there was a loss of £1,000. Tottenham asked that the period of repayment of the loss should be the same as for the loan—viz. twenty-five years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite refused, and I have adhered to that decision. As to the question of the Lambeth farm colony, my withers are unwrung on that question. If the hon. Member knew the facts, instead of disagreeing with me he would rather praise my action. I am bound to subordinate my personal views on many subjects to my official responsibility as guardian of the ratepayers' purse; and I intend to sink the private in the public good. I am not going to allow land agents and others who have got sour and relatively useless lands, unsuitable for farming and agricultural purposes, to palm that land off on innocent town boards of guardians at two or three times the price that it was sold at a short time ago. Therefore, I think I deserve eulogy rather than blame, and I can assure the hon. Member that if he knew as much about that particular colony as I do, he perhaps would have been a little more severe on that district than even I have been. The hon. Member has made a number of silly statements which have been the vogue of ignorant ournalists of the Yellow Press brand during the last ten years. Nearly all those allegations have been the subject of investigation at a trial at the Old Bailey lasting for twenty-one days. On that occasion the hon. and learned Member for the City of London pursued me with a speech which was one of the ablest I have ever heard against myself. Yet the jury acquitted me, and no one rejoiced at the verdict more than the distinguished advocate opposed to me. Since that time how things have changed! Twenty years ago I was answering these allegations in the dock at the Old Bailey-Poetic justice, through the good faith and kindness of my fellow countrymen, has now placed on me the responsibility of
    892
    showing my fellow working-men a quick road out of the crooked path in which many of them have to live, move, and have their being. Curiously, I have with me the very handbill which I handed to the hon. and learned Gentleman twenty years ago. I would ask the House to note the economic soundness and the moderation of our claim in those days as in the present. We asked the Government to relax the severity of the outdoor relief test for able-bodied men. That I have had the proud privilege of doing myself. We asked public bodies to start works at reasonable rates of wages. That is being done, and has been done. We asked the Metropolitan Board of Works to begin public works and build artisans' dwellings. That has since been done to the extent that we have now forty estates in London with 100,000 county council tenants living in them, as against none ten years ago. We asked for the reduction of hours of labour in Government factories to eight hours a day, and I did my best personally to prevail on the present Prime Minister when he was Secretary for War to carry that most useful reform into practice. The next modest thing was that no firm contracting with the Government should pay less than the lowest trade union rate of wages. We asked that a Bill should be introduced reducing the hours of labour on railways, and I am glad to say that has been done, although I think we have not gone far enough. The tramway workers for whom I also pleaded have had a considerable reduction of hours of labour. Last but not least in this modest programme was the call made on the Government, which I understand the Government is not indisposed to agree to, for an international conference of all civilised commercial nations to consider the industrial questions of child labour, the labour of women, work in dangerous trades and a maximum working day. For advocating these modest and moderate instalments

    893
    of justice the hon. Member tried to make out that we had done some very dreadful things. Sane men do not do dreadful things. England is—
    "A land of just and old renown
    Where Freedom slowly broadens down
    From precedent to precedent."
    But "slowly" should be eliminated and "quickly" substituted. Now I must for a moment deal with the allegations of widespread misery before I conclude. It is not true that it prevails to the extent which has been stated. I am not going to shelter myself behind figures and percentages. So long as there is one bona fide man or woman, through no fault of his or her own, out of employment, it ought to be the subject of the legitimate concern of every citizen and every Minister. On this subject my convictions are obligations, and as soon as they can be converted into political duty and administrative acts we shall lose no opportunity in so converting them. But you do not improve matters by exaggerating the distress. In 1894 seven per cent. of trade unionists were out of work; in 1904 the figure was 6 per cent.; and in 1905 it was 4 per cent.—a considerable diminution; and I am glad to inform the House that, in the judgment of those experts and specialists who are in a position to know, there is every reason to believe that 1906, 1907, and 1908 will, with the exception of the building trade, probably be the best three years for employment and industry during the last thirty years. My next point is briefly to deal with what has been called the "widespread misery" of the unemployed as registered by the unemployed district committees. And here I must ask that the facts shall be allowed to temper the statement of the hon. Member. There are ninety distress committees throughout the kingdom. Eight only in Scotland have asked for grants from the Queen's Unemployed Fund, five only from Wales, and practically there has been no demand from Ireland until the other day, when the
    894
    Committee did their best to satisfy Ireland's demand for a share. The hon. Member himself admitted that under the distress committees 8,000 workmen in London are kept going.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Eight thousand out of 42,000.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: It is not the fault of the committees nor of the Government that the proportion to the number unemployed is so small. It is due to the fact that it is a new organisation and that the committees have great difficulty in doing their work. Hon Members who go further than I do on this unemployed question must admit that, so far as the Local Government Board are concerned, they have stimulated these distress committees to get to work and have supplied them with funds. We have revised the inquisitorial character of the inquiries, and we have made regulations under which these distress committees can do their work. So much for the criticism of the hon. Member. The only thing I have now to do is just briefly to tell the House whore this unemployed question is as raised in the Amendment. At the present moment—and the House must be told this, because these are significant facts which must influence any President of the Local Government Board or Government—we have a Royal Commission sitting on the Poor Law, and, under the second term of their reference, they are to inquire into the various moans outside the Poor Law for meeting distress arising from want of employment during periods of industrial depression. Beyond that, the Commission will have to consider the Unemployed Workmen Act—its object and its scope. The Vagrancy Committee, also dealing with another aspect of the unemployed problem, has concluded its labours, and a valuable and interesting report will be in the hands of Members next week. We have a Small Holdings

    895
    Committee dealing with a not unimportant phase of the unemployed problem. I believe we shall have great difficulty in potting town dwellers back to the land. It will be more easy to prevent people from coming to the towns, and the Government have wisely decided, as has been announced to-night by the President of the Board of Trade, to institute a Committee that shall be short, sharp, practical and businesslike, to take into consideration the questions of afforestation, the reclamation of waste lands, coast protection, coast erosion, and so forth. I can only say that so far as our Department is able to facilitate that work we shall do our very best. One other point I think it is right to mention to the House. My distinguished colleague the Secretary of State for War has, at the request of those who know this unemployment question well, done a very sensible and practical thing—he is going to give twenty battalions of Militia their training in the winter and during the slackest period of their year. I believe the whole of the Militia might receive their training at the periods which synchronizes with the slackest period of their normal unemployment. Miners, who are busiest in winter, might receive their training in June and July, while, on the other hand, bricklayers' labourers, and men of that class, who have a slack time in winter, might receive their training at that season. But, perhaps, better than all I have mentioned—and I hope the House will pardon me for doing it—is that I have called into conference at the Local Government Board a number of the largest employers of casual labour in this country, those who employ men at intermittent work, to see whether, by appealing to them to set their own house in order, they cannot on their own initiative, and by consultation with each other, mitigate the precariousness of dock, gas-work, and brickfield labour. The hon. Member says that whatever
    896
    you do you will not seriously affect the problem of the unemployed unless you deal with the question of tariff reform. Two and a half years ago when this question of tariff reform was first brought forward I ventured to say that the agitation and its authors would be "snowed in." My prediction has come true. Not only has the tariff reform Party been "snowed under," but an avalanche has hit them in the midriff. To paraphrase that Americanism, "The subsequent proceedings interest us no more." I venture to say that I have one remedy for unemployment. I believe that what this country wants is immunity from war. I believe that industry is hungering for peace, and that commerce wants economy and retrenchment in every department, and above all, hon. Members must not forget which trades had the largest amount of unemployment. The cotton trade had never had such a good year. The shipbuilding trade last year excelled even its own splendid annals of prosperity-Iron and steel, engineering and machinery, have reached a record in the very years when we were told that the undertaker or the broker's man was to visit them. The trade which has the largest number of unemployed is the building trade. Five years before the war there were only 2 per cent. in that trade out of work, but that percentage is now six times larger. There are no foreigners in the building trade. It is not touched or affected in the least by foreign competition. If the tariff reform proposals were introduced, and if materials were taxed on coming into the country, it would be worse for the building trade. There is simply one reason why the builders are out of work. Since the war the rate of interest on money for private enterprise has risen from 2 per cent. to 3½, 4, and 5 per cent. Let me "bovrilise" these facts. Five years before the war there were 1,012 private Bills got through the House of Commons,

    897
    Many of these meant the expenditure of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 on gas works, electric lighting, tramways, housing, and municipal undertakings. Since the war dear money has prevailed, and local authorities have had high rates. They have withheld the promotion of public works which would otherwise have given employment to a large number of men. The result has been that the number of men unemployed in the building trade has been considerably increased. I am glad to say that the building trade is improving. That improvement will go on as money becomes cheap and as the general trade of the country improves. I beg the House to assist in providing real remedies, but not the economic quackeries that are often suggested, not fiscal fallacies, where the remedy would be worse than the disease, not the proposals of visionary politicians which would sap the independence of the people, postpone permanent reform, and do damage both to the community and the individual by proceeding on the unsound economic lines which these pernicious remedies too often take. The greatest means for the improvement of trade is that in the next twenty years we should not have fourteen wars and expeditions as we had in the last ton years. What we have to do is not to spend so much money on wasteful expenditure, abroad, but to concentrate our efforts on remunerative expenditure at home; help industries in their natural expansion so that they can absorb what are now displaced. What we have clearly to recognise is that it is not sufficient to provide men with irregular work; that it is not sufficient to provide transient relief works. I believe that the best remedy you can provide for unskilled labour, apart from giving steady work, is to see that the wages paid are such that the workman would have a margin wherewith to insure against unemployment. Less money should be wasted on drinking
    898
    and betting, and wiser provision should be made for the exercise of true providence in the best sense of the word. These are only some out of many of the suggestions that might be made for the betterment of the unemployed. If time permited, and if this were the occasion, I could go into more of the things which the Government have in contemplation. There is no royal road to economic reform or social revolution. The remedies for the unemployed are as numerous as the causes are multifarious. It is the business of the Government to take occasion by the hand, and to help the unemployed whenever that is possible. So far the Government have lost no opportunity of helping the unemployed on every possible occasion, as the several measures in the King's Speech indicate, and I sincerely regret that the time of the House in the debate on the King's Speech should have been more or less wasted, as it has been, in the discussion of this subject to-night.
    I trust that I have dealt with the Amendment to the satisfaction of the House generally. I hope I have done it in a tone and temper that have commended my observations to the House. I thank the House for having listened to me so kindly. I would be inhuman if I did not say that I thank the House from the bottom of my heart for enabling me, the first of the ancient lowly, to stand at this box after twenty years to repeat in the same form, and to commend to the House of Commons, what in the old dark days of the unemployed I pressed on the public attention with much less notice. To-night I speak under circumstances and with an environment which are more congenial to me than in the days when I had to appear in the dock of the Old Bailey, where I first met the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the City of London.
    MR. COURTHOPEsaid the President of the Local Government

    899
    Board had given an outline of some of the questions with which the Government proposed to deal in connection with the unemployed problem. He mentioned small holdings, and it was to that subject that he himself desired to refer. The question of unemployment was closely tied up with the agricultural question, and he was glad to know that the Government proposals included the remedy of bringing the people back to the land. In endeavouring to find a remedy for the exodus from the rural districts, it was well to look for a moment to the cause of it. It was said during the election, and since then in this House, that the people had been driven from the land by the wickedness of the landlords. He submitted that that was not so. He maintained that they must look further than the landlords for the cause of agricultural depression. To adopt any drastic system of taking people back from the towns to the land, without providing any profitable employment for them, would be a failure. It would be putting the cart before the horse. The people who were brought back to the land must be enabled to cultivate it profitably. Something must be done to revive the agricultural industry. One of the reasons why the agricultural industry required reviving was that we had not produced agricultural commodities sufficiently, and that we had imported too much. Why was it that we imported annually 7,500,000 bushels of onions, between 3,500,000 and 10,000,000 cwts. of potatoes, and £5,000,000 worth of fruit? In January this year we imported 30,000 cwts. of foreign hops. He mentioned fruit and hops because he believed the cultivation of these products required a greater amount of labour than any other cultivation that could be named. One of the best methods, in his opinion, that the Government could adopt in order to bring the people back to the land was to do something to encourage the fruit industry and the
    900
    hop industry. It was said that the hop and fruit growers wanted protection. What they wanted was to be able to enter our markets with their produce on the same terms as foreigners entered with their produce. Give them fair trade and their farmers would be able to compete. Something should be done for the hop and fruit industry, for if the farmers and fruit growers had fair play, or real free trade, they could meet any competition in the world. We imported too much, and produced too little, and no one would suggest that that was a good thing for our working classes. He hoped that this question of the right of entering foreign markets would be considered by even this Free Trade Government. The present Government, above all others, ought to deal with the question of "back to the land," and the easiest way of doing so would be by reviving our great national industry.
    MR. HUNTsaid he could not quite agree with the right hon. the President of the Local Government Board in his remarks about the fireworks in South Africa. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that these fireworks had been caused by the invasion of our country by the Boers and by their insulting ultimatum. If the right hon. Gentleman looked back in history he would see that no great nation had ever been able to go on for any great length of time without a big war. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that fiscal reform was practically dead and buried. He begged to differ from him entirely. They were told quite recently by Lord Avebury and by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that, in spite of booming trade, unemployment was getting worse and worse. The Member for Merthyr Tydvil said that the misery caused by want of work was very terrible and continuous, so that the booming trade did not seem to have

    901
    done the working people very much good. [Cries of "Divide."] He did not come to the House with the intention of speaking, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposed to do in this case? The First Lord of the Admiralty had much work to do for the British Navy, but the Government contractors, Messrs. Jackson, told them that they were going to buy till the granite they required for the Keyham Harbour Works in Norway because they could get it cheaper there than here, and that the reason of that was because the Norwegian workman got only about half the wages the British workman required. An hon. Gentleman had said that the British Government should be a model employer, and should pay the union rate of wages; but, he asked, did they insist on the foreign employer of labour paying the same rate of wages as here? And if not, how were they going to give employment to the British workman if they got goods from foreign countries at cheaper rates than they could be obtained at here? Take the wool industry. The tax in America on woollen goods was £94 for every £100 worth. The consequence was that America kept its own market to itself, and sent its surplus goods to this country free and sold them at cost price, or sometimes at less than cost price. While imports from this country were heavily taxed—Lord Kelvin said at about the rate of 12½ per cent.—the Americans sent their goods over here without paying a halfpenny for their admission. Therefore we were practically paying the Americans £10 or £12 upon every £100 of goods received. That was the way in which it appeared to him. He thought at all events that it was very well worth the while of those who represented labour to look very closely into the matter in order to see whether it was not possible that those who believed in free imports were wrong and that the whole of the rest of the civilised world right.
    902
    Question put, "To add at the end of the Address, 'But humbly to represent that, whilst Your Majesty records with satisfaction the fact that the imports and exports of the country show a steady and accelerating increase, there is widespread misery among the labouring classes due to want of employment, and this House regrets that no remedy has boon proposed in Your Majesty's gracious Speech to prevent the great want of employment which exists.'"
    Question negatived, and Main Question again proposed.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he had to move an Amendment to the Address in regard to throwing the cost of the maintenance of the public roads upon the Imperial Exchequer. He was bringing the subject forward in accordance with a promise which he made in his election address. [MINISTERIAL Laughter.] Evidently, from those cheers, hon. Members opposite were astonished at any one endeavouring to redeem promises given at the election. The reason he had interested himself in the matter was that if his suggestion were adopted the main roads of England would be kept in a better condition and the ratepayers in the country districts would be materially relieved. The main roads of England were daily becoming more used, and although they were better than in days gone by they left a good deal to be desired. He thought the system in France was one which might be adopted with great advantage to ourselves. There were national roads supported by the State and other roads in the maintenance of which the State assisted. Under these circumstances the roads in France left but little to be desired. This subject had already engaged the attention of several Commissions, and the Local Taxation Commission of 1900 recommended that one half of the

    903
    expense of the national roads should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. Two secretaries of the Treasury concurred in that view, and there were also references made to the subject by the Committee on Highways, which reported in 1903. He was afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to give him a very sympathetic answer, but he had no doubt that the President of the Local Government Board would give the matter his attention, as the question was of the utmost importance in the rural districts.
    COLONEL LEGGEformally seconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words:—'But humbly regret that no mention is made of any arrangement for making the maintenance of public roads a charge on the Imperial Exchequer.'"—(Colonel Lockwood.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a matter which we cannot well deal with until we come to consider the question of local taxation, and I promise to consider the matter then.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODintimated that in view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
    To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

    SUPPLY.
    Resolved, That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—(Mr. M'Kenna.)
    Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present session be referred to the Committee of Supply.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolved, That this House will, this day, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—(Mr. M'Kenna.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
    Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.