Commons Sitting of 27 February 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Hants (Northern or Basingstoke Division), in the room of the right hon. Arthur
1004
Frederick Jeffreys, deceased.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood)
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

RIVATE 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 on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Derby Gas Bill; Peterborough Gas Bill; Southampton Gas Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton 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.:—Charing Cross, West End, and City Electricity Supply Bill; London Electric Supply Corporation Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Bill; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Burry Port Gas and Improvement Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill; Read a second time and committed.
  South Lincolnshire Water Bill; Read a second time, and committed.
  Huddersfield Corporation Bill [by order]; Read a second time and committed.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill [by order]; Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill [by order]; Read a second time, and committed.
  West Middlesex Roads Bill [by order]; Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Leigh; and Widnes; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal Colleges of Science and of Art, the Geological Survey and Museum, and on the work of the Solar Physics Committee for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Scheme under the Acts for the Management of the Crewkerne Grammer School Foundation, in the parish of Crewkerne, in the county of Somerset, founded by John Combe in or about the year 1499, regulated by a Scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts on 21st July 1876, as altered by Schemes of the Charity Commissioners of 30th November 1877 and 23rd February 1883, and as amended by a Scheme made under the said Acts on 3rd October 1895 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Tables showing the extent in statute acres and the produce of the Crops for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PIERS AND HARUOURS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and The General Pier and Harbour Act (1861) Amendment Act, Session 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 61.)

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum explanatory of the objects of the Notice of Accidents Bill."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 62.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Men Employed Building "Dreadnought" and "Britannia."
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what was the average number of men employed per week in building the battleships "Dreadnought" and "Britannia" at Portsmouth since 1st October, 1905, and what number worked overtime in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The proportion of labour employed on the "Britannia" and "Dreadnought," respectively, since 1st October has been 1 to 2·01. Practically no overtime has been worked on the "Britannia," as the time originally fixed for her completion, and the consequent contractors' dates for supply of material, fittings, etc., rendered it unnecessary; but she is in advance of her time, and will probably be ready two months earlier than the official date originally fixed for her completion. No reason existed in the case of the "Britannia" (being the last ship of an approved type) for asking the contractors to anticipate their contract dates for delivery of material, or for their work on the ship, hence there was no necessity for special overtime; but in the case of the "Dreadnought," the first vessel of an entirely new and very novel type, the Board of Admiralty decided, in order to try her at sea as soon as possible, to use every effort for her completion with the utmost despatch. With that object a large number of men, about two-thirds of the labour, employed on such work as the riveting of the hull and preparing of the launching ways, etc., have been working overtime, with the result that the ship will be completed for sea in advance of her original date, and at less cost than anticipated. It is not proposed, nor will it be necessary to have recourse to any such special efforts in future vessels, but in the case of the "Dreadnought" it was essential, in the interests of the public service, to take steps for getting her quickly to sea; very satisfactory results have thus been obtained, both in economy of construction and in rapidity of completion. The "Dreadnought" will probably be ready for sea in about fifteen months from the date of laying the keel.

  Sale of English Line of Nile Steamers to German Company.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making inquiry respecting the sale and transfer of the English line of steamers on the Nile to a German Company, with the view to taking steps to see that the interests of this country in Egypt are not prejudiced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) We understand that the Hamburg-American Steamship Company has joined with the Anglo-American Nile Steamer and Hotel Company in establishing a service of steamers on the Nile, and that the new Company will be known as the Hamburg and Anglo-American Nile Company. The establishment of this Company does not appear to be open to any objection, and the matter is not one in which any inquiry on the part of His Majesty's Government would seem to be necessary or in which they could interfere.

  Decoration of Outer Lobby.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works, when it is proposed to complete the decorative work by filling in the two vacant panels in the Outer Lobby.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) No provision for this work has been made in the ensuing year's Estimates, and I cannot

  Average Prices of British Cattle and Sheep per eight pounds, sinking the offal, at the Metropolitan Cattle Market.

  Period.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  Inferior Quality.

  Second Quality.

  First Quality.

  Inferior Quality.

  Second Quality.

  First Quality.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  1880–1892

  3

  5

  4

  8

  5

  3

  4

  7

  5

  8

  6

  3

  1893–1905

  2

  8

  3

  11

  4

  7

  3

  7

  5

  0

  5

  9

  The Board of Trade have been good enough to supply index numbers as to the prices of beef and mutton since the year 1871, from which it appears, taking
  1008
  undertake under present financial conditions to ask for funds for merely-decorative purposes.

  Effect of Restriction of Importation of Live Cattle on Prices of Beef and Mutton.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he has any official information showing the average prices of beef and mutton respectively in the United Kingdom prior to and since the year 1896, when restrictions were placed upon the importation of live cattle into this country; and whether the Agricultural Department has prepared any index numbers by which a comparison may be made between the variations in the prices of beef and mutton and those of commodities generally, say, during the past thirty years.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No official information is available to show the average prices of beef and mutton in the United Kingdom for the period to which the hon. Member refers, but the following table gives the average prices of cattle and sheep in the Metropolitan Moat Market for the years 1880–1892 and 1893–1905. The year 1892 has been taken, for the reason that Canadian cattle were first subjected to the requirement of slaughter at the port of landing in that year, although the requirement was not made a statutory one until 1896.
  that year as a base (100), the mean index numbers for beef and mutton are 97·3 and 105·5 for the period 1880–1892, and 85·3 and 96·9 for the period 1893–1905.

  The following Table gives the figures for each year from 1872 to 1895.

  1872.

  1873.

  1874.

  1875.

  1876.

  1877.

  1878.

  Beef

  103·1

  114·0

  110·9

  114·7

  111·6

  110·1

  111·6

  Mutton

  105·6

  113·4

  97·2

  116·9

  118·3

  116·9

  115·5

  Removal of H.MS. "Satellite" from the Tyne.
  MR. H. J. CRAIG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the contemplated removal of H.M.S. "Satellite" from the Tyne will not only inflict inconvenience on the men of the Royal Naval Reserve resident on Tyne, side, but also deprive an important port of a ship which is extensively used, both
  1010
  as a recruiting depôt for His Majesty's Navy, and as a drill ship for naval reserves of all classes, he will consider the desirability of retaining her in commission for a further period.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty have decided to lend H.M.S. "Satellite" to the Tyneside Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, on the understanding that the

  1011
  expense of her upkeep and maintenance, together with any dock dues and local charges that may he levied, will be borne by the funds of the Division.

  Day of Rest for Metropolitan Policemen.
  MR. THORNE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if legislation is required to give the Metropolitan Police one day's rest in seven instead of one day's rest in fourteen as now prevails.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The leave of Metropolitan Police is not regulated by Statute, and could no doubt be altered without legislation; but I may say that the alteration suggested in the Question would involve a very large augmentation of the force, and that the cost would be so great that it could not be met without exceeding the limit of 9d. fixed by The Police Act, 1868, to the Metropolitan Police Rate.

  Equalisation of Rates Bill—Area Affected.
  MR. THORNE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will, when drafting the Equalisation of Rates Bill, make it apply to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It is proposed that the Bill should provide for an amendment of The London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894. Hence it must necessarily be limited to the Metropolis.

  Old Age Pensions and Indoor Relief.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give any information as to the approximate cost of maintaining the aged poor of the United Kingdom over sixty-five years of age by means of indoor and outdoor relief; and what is the average cost per head respectively of the two methods of relief.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I regret that I am not able to give the information asked for, and I fear that it would not be practicable to obtain it. The jurisdiction of the Local Government Board only extends to England and Wales, so that my Answer must be taken as applying only to that part of the United Kingdom.

  Indian Staff Corps Officers—Place of Residence awaiting Compulsory Retirement.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a recent ruling of the Government of India to the effect that officers of the Indian Staff Corps who entered the Indian Army on or after the 1st July 1881 shall, on vacating employment, be allowed the option of residing in or out of India until compulsory retirement on account of age; while residing in India officers will receive the pay of their rank, and while residing out of India they will be allowed to take any furlough admissible under the 1886 Leave Rules, and receive unemployed pay at the rate of £500 a year; whether, under this ruling officers who joined after 1st July 1881, and, in consequence of having won the distinction of early commands, are obliged by the rules to vacate their commands for a more or less considerable time before-their compulsory retirement, are forced to choose between spending the time in India or accepting £200 per annum loss if they wish to spend it at home; and whether in view of the fact that officers who joined before the 1st July 1881 could elect on the termination of their commands, to reside in or out of India on the furlough to which they were entitled, furlough pay being £600 per annum for officers of from twenty-four to twenty-nine years' service and £700 for those of twenty-nine and onwards, he will explain why this difference is made in the case of the officer who joined in 1881 and after between the pay they receive in India and in England while they are awaiting their compulsory retirement after relinquishing their commands, and say whether the ruling above quoted can be reconsidered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The right of residing in or out of India after vacation of appointment has been extended to the officers who entered the Indian Army after the 1st July 1881. The conditions are, as regards officers under the Leave Rules of 1886, correctly stated in the second clause of the Question. As regards the remainder of the Question, I must explain that the officers appointed to the Indian Army before the 1st July 1881 possessed a prescriptive right to remain in the Service and a certain claim

  1013
  to continous employment; and, when the latter was taken from them in 1881 (on the occasion of the limitation of tenure of regimental command), they necessarily retained the right of residence in India on Indian pay. To these officers, at the time, was given the option of remaining in India on this pay or of completing their service at home on furlough pay, i.e., half Indian pay, or (during the period 1381–86) about £400 a year. In 1886 new Leave Rules came into force, and officers who elected those Rules necessarily became entitled to leave pay under them in place of their furlough pay under the older Rules. The above concession was expressly limited to the officers who entered before the 1st July 1881. The other officers have no right to remain indefinitely in the Service, and they were appointed after the limitation of tenure of command had been introduced, and therefore they have not the same claim to special treatment as those officers whoso conditions of service had been changed for the worse by the limitation. They have not hitherto been allowed the concession of completing their service for higher pensions after becoming unemployed, though the Regulations have contained a rate of unemployed pay applicable to them, viz., £360 a year, wherever residing, and it has no doubt been understood that they would not be compelled to retire before attaining the age for superannuation. My predecessor decided that the rate of £365 a year was insufficient, and fixed the unemployed pay at Indian pay while residing in India, and a special rate of £500 residing out of India for officers of over twenty-four years' service, and subject to the Leave Rules of 1886. I may add that £500 a year is the unemployed pay of a major-general, and that it would be unsuitable that general officers should draw smaller unemployed pay than officers of inferior rank. Officers under the Furlough Rules of 1875 are entitled to half Indian pay only while residing at home, whether they entered the Indian Army before or after 1st July 1881. I see no reason for reconsidering my predecessor's decision.

  Army Candidates and Irish Tailors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint of the Irish tailors that candidates for Army
  1014
  appointments almost invariably obtain their uniforms and outfits in London; whether he is aware that the military authorities furnish the candidates with official papers indicating different places in London to purchase their uniforms and outfits; and whether he will make inquiry, and arrange that Dublin and London shall be put upon equal terms in regard to such supplies.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The selection of a tailor in Ireland, as in England, is left entirely to the discretion of the individual officers who deal with them. Candidates on passing are informed officially by the War Office that they can have forwarded on application the price lists of all those firms in Great Britain and Ireland who have availed themselves of the opportunity of submitting their lists to the War Office for the provision of officers' outfits on cash terms. The reason of this practice on the part of the War Office is that it is attempting to insure moderation in charges. Commanding officers are, however, forbidden to order any young officer to purchase his uniform from any particular tailor.

  Irish Board of Agriculture—Position of Mr. Porter.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether Mr. Porter, of the Board of Agriculture, Dublin, was originally employed in the Army or Navy; whether he was in the employment of the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, for how long, and at what salary; how long and at what salary was he in the employment of the Land Commission; and whether Mr. Porter has been employed in any other Government Department in Ireland or England.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Mr. Porter was formerly a sub-lieutenant in the Navy, from which service he retired with a pension of £45 12s. 6d. He has been continuously in the employment of the Irish Government since 24th November 1887, when he was appointed as Lay Assistant Commissioner under the Land Acts. His salary in that position was £800, including subsistence allowance. His qualifications are stated in Parliamentary Paper 177, of 1891. On 21st December 1891, Mr. Porter was appointed to be

  1015
  Superintendent of the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, at a salary of £1,000, including subsistence allowance. Whilst so employed his services were utilised, from 1892, in connection with the operations of the Congested Districts Board for the improvement of agriculture in the Congested Districts. His salary was borne on the Vote for the Land Commission, which department, at that time, managed the Congested Districts Board's agricultural operations. In 1900, Mr. Porter was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in pursuance of Section 22 (1) of the Act establishing the Department; but he continued to be employed upon the work of the Congested Districts Board up to the 31st March 1904. During the two latter years of such service one-half of Mr. Porter's salary was defrayed by the Congested Districts Board, the remainder being borne by the Department of Agriculture. A reduction from Mr. Porter's salary of the amount of his naval pension has been made throughout his service. I have no information that Mr. Porter was ever employed in any Government Department in England.

  Speech by Colonel Davies at Dinner of imperial Light Horse.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the speech made on the 29th January, by Colonel W. T. F. Davies, at the annual dinner of the Imperial Light Horse, in which speech the Prime Minister and his colleagues were spoken of in terms of opprobrium; whether Lord Selborne was present on that occasion; and whether he made any remonstrance at the use of such Ianguage.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The; Secretary of State has noticed the report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. It is very natural that persons of excitable character who apprehend that their monetary interests may be prejudicially affected by the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Chinese labour should express themselves strongly, particularly after dinner. The Secretary of State does not propose to attach undue importance to such I criticism; though it be regretted that Lord Selborne should have been subjected
  1016
  to the annoyance of hearing it offered in his presence.

  Army Clothing Contracts.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a Return from the Army Clothing Department depôt ofthe total cost of material issued for any contract to the contractor, and the total amount received by the contractor for the same clothing.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I fear the mischief arising from the publication of the information asked for would probably exceed the good which might result. There is, however, another mode of dealing with the evil which I think the hon. Member has in view. This mode the War Office is about to adopt as the result of a conference held last week with a labour deputation, which approached the War Office and the Admiralty on this and other subjects. If the hon. Member will speak to me privately I will tell him what steps are being taken.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a return from the Army Clothing Department dopôt of clothing made at their factory, and compare cost with that made by contractors.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The full details as to the cost of clothing made in the Royal Army Clothing Factory will be found in the accounts of that establishment which are annually presented to Parliament. The further point raised by this Question falls within the Answer which I have already given to the hon. Member.

  Sittings of Foreign and Colonial Legislatures.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can, in reply to this Question or by the issue of a Parliamentary Paper, state the daily hours and annual periods during which the representative chambers of the United States, of the principal European countries, of Japan, and of our self-governing Colonies meet in session, i.e., the approximate dates in the year when they are usually convened and discharged

  1017
  from their duties, and the hours of the day when such respective bodies ordinarily meet and adjourn; whether he can give similar information in the case of the House of Commons, say from the middle of the eighteenth century up to the present time; and, if it is not practicable to fully furnish this information without undue trouble and delay, will he give such of it as is more readily available to Government officials.
  (Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman.) The information asked for in the first part of this Question will be found in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 907. With reference to the duration of daily and yearly sittings of the House of Commons, I will see whether a Paper can be laid giving the greater part at least of the information required.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Discharges of Government Dockyard Workmen.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to re-engage the workmen recently discharged from Government dockyards.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): As far as the requirements of the dockyards can be foreseen at present, it is not anticipated that there will be any opportunity to re-enter the workmen recently discharged.
  A LABOUR MEMBER: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to discharge any men from the dockyards in March next?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  General Ian Hamilton's Book.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he authorised General Sir Ian Hamilton to publish a book upon the Russo-Japanese War.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE,): The book in question was published
  1018
  before the present Government came into office. I had personally nothing to do with it.

  Soldiers in Civil Prisons.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of soldiers, if any, now incarcerated in civil prisons undergoing punishment for military offences, and the number of soldiers now undergoing punishment in civil prisons for civil offences; and whether any soldiers are now undergoing punishment in civil prisons whose sentence does not carry with it discharge from the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of soldiers in civil prisons for military offences is twenty-one, and for civil offences 252. There are sixty-seven soldiers in civil prisons whose sentence does not carry with it discharge from the Army

  Australian Colonies and Irish Home Rule.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petition to His Majesty in favour of self-government for Ireland, passed by the Commonwealth of Australia Federal Parliament, has been received; whether it will be printed and circulated for the information of Members of this House; and also whether a Resolution of similar; character has been received from the West Australian Parliament.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL,): An address to the King from the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in favour of granting Home Rule to Ireland, and a Resolution of the Commonwealth Senate to the same effect have been received. The Secretary of State has not received any similar Resolution from the Parliament of Western Australia. I shall be very glad to lay the Resolutions on the Table of the House.

  Kaffir Labour at Transvaal Mines.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Kaffir labourers employed

  1019
  in the Transvaal mines at the close of each of the years 1901–2–3–4 respectively and for each of the months of the year 1905 separately, so far as he has the facts.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The number of Kaffir labourers in the Transvaal in employment on last day of each month were as follows:—

  December, 1901

  15,306

  December, 1902

  45,698

  December, 1903

  73,622

  December, 1904

  83,639

  January, 1905

  89,895

  February, 1905

  97,882

  March, 1905

  105,184

  April, 1905

  107,756

  May, 1905

  106,864

  June, 1905

  104,902

  July, 1905

  103,623

  August, 1905

  100,081

  September, 1905

  97,721

  October, 1905

  96,392

  November, 1905

  96,283

  December, 1905

  93,831

  MR. BELLOC: Is it not the fact that Kaffir labour was steadily increasing until it was gradually displaced by Chinese labour?
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.

  Cape Colony Franchise.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether coloured persons in Cape Colony are admitted to the franchise on the same terms as whites, and how many natives, British Indians, and other coloured persons are entitled to exercise the franchise.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The number of natives on the list of voters in 1902 was 19,505, of British Indians 399, of Malays 747, and of Chinese 67.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the population in the Transvaal of natives, of British Indians, and of other coloured persons, respectively; whether all these persons pay taxes for the support of the Colony; and what steps His Majesty's Government
  1020
  propose to take to secure representation for these persons in any Constitution that may be granted to the Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The population of aboriginal natives in the Transvaal in April, 1904, was 945, 498: the number of all other coloured persons including British Indians was 23,891. They all pay taxes. In accordance with the terms of surrender, the question of granting the franchise to natives will not be decided until after the introduction of self-government.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked whether the term "natives" in the Vereeniging Treaty had any relation to British Indians.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I supposed it covered all but Europeans; but I will look into the point.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  COLONELLEGGE (St. George 's,): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reasonable amount of notice required before a Chinese coolie can obtain leave to be repatriated at Government expense.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not yet possible to make a statement on this matter. The regulations are being carefully considered.

  Transvaal Elections.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is expected that the elections in the Transvaal will take place.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The elections in the Transvaal cannot conveniently take place until the form of Constitution, the basis of the franchise and other fundamental questions have been determined, and the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to name a date.

  Transvaal Labour Ordnance.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the regulations by which Chinese coolies are kept in compounds are to be rescinded.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not at pre sent proposed to rescind the regulations of the first Labour Ordinance by which the Chinese coolies are kept within the premises of the mines. They are not kept in compounds.

  Natal Disturbances.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information showing that, in relation to some disturbances in Natal, the kraals and crops of the natives implicated have been destroyed; and, if so, can he say how many women and children were rendered homeless and foodless by this action.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no information, official or other, to this effect.

  Orange River Colony Franchise.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the conditions of electoral franchise in the Orange River Colony will be the same as those conferred on the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: This Question is among those which are now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and concerning which it is proposed to obtain further information.

  Transvaal and Orange River Colony Population.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the adult male population of the British and Dutch races, respectively, in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am unable to give figures. The census does not make any distinction between races of European origin.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: Will you take steps to get the information?
  MR. CHURCHILL: This is among the subjects as to which the Government propose to make inquiry.

  Gold Output in the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
  1022
  whether he can state the total value of the gold output for the months of December in each of the years 1901–2–3–4, respectively, and for each of the months of 1905 separately, so far as he has the facts.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The figures are as follows: Value of gold output in Transvaal—

  £

  December 1901

  224,692

  December 1902

  832,652

  December 1903

  1,215,111

  December 1904

  1,538,377

  January 1905

  1,578,847

  February 1905

  1,557,291

  March 1905

  1,699,991

  April 1905

  1,712,071

  May 1905

  1,767,438

  June 1905

  1,760,044

  July 1905

  1,778,112

  August 1905

  1,836,172

  September 1905

  1,763,973

  October 1905

  1,768,798

  November 1905

  1,799,595

  December 1905

  1,833,295

  Northern Nigeria Disturbances.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further authentic information to give about the disaster in Northern Nigeria; and whether any punitive expedition will be necessary.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In telegram, dated February 16th and received at the Colonial Office on the 20th, Sir Frederick Lugard, the High Commissioner, stated that a Mahdi had arisen near Sokoto and had completely defeated one company of (native) mounted infantry on February 14th; and that three British officers, mentioned by name, were reported killed. Of these, two were civilians and one a military officer. One medical officer was severely wounded. A further telegram has now been received from the High Commissioner reporting as follows:—"Further news from Burdon, Sokoto, states no room for hope that either of three British officers living; position of garrison quite safe, awaiting arrival of reinforcements; 150 will arrive about February 28th; local chiefs loyally co-operating in suppression. Disaster due to horses bolting, breaking square. Total native troops reported killed, twenty-five. Position of affairs gives me much less

  1023
  anxiety." So far as Lord Elgin can judge, the circumstances are not such as will necessarily call for a punitive expedition in the ordinary sense, but it will doubtless be necessary to reinforce the troops in the district and to take measures to arrest and punish the promoters of the disturbance. A further telegram has been received to-day from Sir F. Lugard saying that he has heard from Major Burdon that all the white men in or near Sokoto are safe except those already reported killed.

  Physical Deterioration Committee's Report.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary- of -State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee to the effect that a Bill should be brought before Parliament at an early date, having for its object the prohibition of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to children below a certain age; and whether he is now in a position to say that this recommendation will be acted upon in the present session.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): I am aware of the recommendation in the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee, and I will give the matter my careful consideration; but I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to legislation.

  Licensing Act—Compensation Return.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will present a Return giving such information as to the operation of the Licensing Act, 1904, during the year 1905 as he is empowered to require from compensation authorities under the seventh section of that Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have in preparation, and hope to issue before very long, a volume of licensing statistics. This will include the information asked for by the hon. Member, among much other material which will, I hope, be found useful.

  Examination for Factory Inspectors.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that neither the preliminary nor the final examination for the office of factory inspector includes, as obligatory subjects, hygiene, chemistry, machine construction and drawing, applied mechanics, steam, and electricity; and whether, in the interest of efficient factory inspection, he can give any promise that the present form of the examinations referred to shall be revised.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The present scheme of examination for factory inspectorships is the result of a recent revision, the object of which was to bring it more into accord with the ascertained needs of the Factory Department. Those needs are so diverse in their character that technical and scientific training, valuable as it is, is not, taken alone, found to be sufficient to make a good inspector. Thoroughly good general abilities are always required, and the object of the present scheme of examination has been to obtain such men, by drawing upon as wide a field as possible of candidates with the best modern education which the country affords. The hon. Member will not have failed to notice that candidates of technical and scientific attainments are provided with an entry to the inspectorate by the inclusion of chemistry, physics and practical mechanism among the optional subjects of examination, while sanitary science is made an obligatory subject in the deferred examination; the reason being that this subject is found to be most thoroughly acquired in the course of the actual work of inspection. The highly technical questions connected with the use of electricity in factories are now dealt with by an electrical inspector specially appointed for that purpose. I do not therefore think that any further alteration in this examination is required, but should experience of its results show that modifications are necessary, I shall be prepared to make them.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that, according to definition, factories are places where power is used, and should not, therefore, a candidate for examination have the requisite knowledge of power?
  MR. J. R. MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to use the January syllabus for the next examination?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it will be used. In the last two or three days I have been asked to give a definite and final opinion on this matter. As, however, the question has been under consideration for fifteen months I am not prepared to give a final answer after fifteen days consideration of the subject. I will see how the system works and then form my own opinion.

  West Yorkshire Police and Passive Resisters' Goods.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the police of the West Hiding of Yorkshire are making a charge of one shilling daily for the storage of passive resistors' goods; under what authority they make such a charge; will he give directions for the return of the charges thus made; whether they have his sanction as being in accordance with the scale of charges fixed by the Act, 57 Geo. 3., cap. 93.
  MR. GLADSTONE: On the 11th January, 1905, a table of fees payable to constables of the West Riding of Yorkshire, containing a fee of one shilling per day for keeping possession of goods under distraint, was submitted by the Standing Joint Committee and approved by the Secretary of State acting under the powers given to him by section 23 of the Police Act, 1890. A legal question has since been raised, namely, whether the scale of charges fixed by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, (57 Geo. III., cap. 93), as extended by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1826, (7 and 8 Geo. IV., cap. 17) applies in certain cases to the exclusion of the fees approved under the Police Act, 1890. This question can only be determined by the courts of law, and I have no power to decide it or to give any directions of the nature suggested. I understand that the question has actually come before a county court, and that there is to be an appeal to the High Court.

  Alien Immigration Boards and the Press.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the
  1026
  Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the representatives of the public Press are admitted to attend the proceedings of the Alien Immigration Boards; and, if not, whether he will take steps to assure such admission if desired.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that in most cases, if not in all, the representatives of the public Press have not been admitted to attend the proceedings of the Immigration Boards. This is a matter which, with other points of procedure as settled by my predecessor, has been left by the regulations to the discretion of the Boards. It is engaging my attention.

  Maintenance of Parents—Imprisonment for Non-Payment.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that two labourers living at Wrangley, in Lincolnshire, named Harry Blythe and Charles Blythe, have been committed to prison for twenty-one days, for failing to obey the order of the guardians of the Boston Union, each to contribute 1s. a week to the guardians for the maintenance of their parent, and to obey the order of the magistrates to pay 2s. 6d. a week each for arrears; and whether, seeing that three out of the five magistrates of the North Holland Bench sitting at Boston, who made the order to commit, were Members of the Board of Guardians that prosecuted the case, he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent magistrates adjudicating in cases in which they are so interested.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry in the case and am informed that of the magistrates who issued the committal orders two were guardians. There appears to have been sufficient evidence that the defendants, neither of whom was married, were in a position to pay the monies due from them in respect of their mother's maintenance. The two guardians who adjudicated in the case appear not to have been more interested than any other ratepayers would be in recovering the debt due to the common fund of the Union; and the facts at present before me do not suggest the desirability of any new legislation on the subject.

  Administration of the Housing Acts.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether certain members of the staff of the Local Government Board devote their whole time to the administration of the Housing Acts, or whether the administration of the Housing Acts is carried out by members of the staff to whom is allocated other work connected with the Local Government Board.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOAED (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The work devolving on the Local Government Board under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts is, together with other sanitary business, dealt with in the Sanitary Administration Department of the Office. No members of the staff of the Board are required to devote their whole time to this work.

  British Insurance Companies—Suggested Official Audit.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of arranging an annual official audit of the manner, and securities, in which the capital funds of British insurance companies are, invested; whether he will also enquire; into the expediency of establishing a Government guaranteed insurance company enabling a moderate system of premiums for fire, life and accident upon the lines of an institution carried on by the responsible Government in the New Zealand Colony.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I fear I am not at the moment in a position to advise the adoption of either of the very far-reaching proposals suggested by my hon. friend.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point in the immediate future, seeing that this plan has been adopted in New Zealand?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is a good deal to be said for the first Question. I will consider it carefully.

  Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am still in communication with representatives of the shipping interest on one or two points I wish to elicit their views on, before the draft is finally settled, but I hope to be able to introduce the Bill in the course of the next few days.

  Cleator Moor Postal Service.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will accelerate the mails to and from Cleator Moor, Egremont, Frizington, and other places in that neighbourhood, to enable the population in that district to receive their letters and communications before nine and ten o'clock each morning.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Some inquiry has recently been made on this subject, but it was found that certain proposals made by the District Councils concerned were impracticable. I am, however, considering whether the object in view can be attained in any other way.

  Irish National Schools—Building Plans.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has been arrived at in the matter of the new plans for building national schools in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can say when the details of these plans will be published.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The matter is still under consideration.

  Epizootic Abortion in Cattle.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what progress has been made by the Departmental Committee on epizootic abortion in cattle; whether any interim Report will be issued; and whether any systematic inquiries have been made to ascertain the

  1029
  prevalence of the disease at the present time and during, say, the past ten years.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Sir EDWARD STBACHEY,): The Committee have obtained the use of suitable laboratory accommodation in the neighbourhood of London, where scientific experiments are being carried out with the object of determining whether epizootic abortion is contagious, and, if so, the nature of the contagion, and the manner in which the disease spreads. It is not proposed to issue an interim Report. No systematic inquiries as to the prevalence of the disease have yet been made, but there is no doubt that it is the cause of very considerable loss to stockowners, and that, outbreaks are of frequent occurrence.

  Cahersavane—Clooghvoola Road.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been previously made to the Congested Districts Board for assistance in the construction of a road from Cahersavane to Clooghvoola, in the rural district of Caherciveen; and whether, seeing that its construction is urgently required, the Congested Districts Board will now undertake it.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BEYCE,): In October last the Board postponed the consideration of the application referred to until some members of the Board should inspect the route. No opportunity for such inspection has since occurred, but the first convenient occasion will be taken.

  Clare Land Commission.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the next Sitting of the head Land Commission will be held in County Clare.
  MR. BRYCE: The date has not yet been arranged, but the matter will come up for consideration by the Judicial Commissioner concerned on his return from circuit.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts in Ireland cases have been listed for five years before being heard?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of that fact.

  Irish Police and the Dungannon Club, Carrickmore.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of placards, giving notice of a lecture about to be recently given in Dungannon Club, Carrickmore, were repeatedly torn down or defaced by the local constabulary force; (2) whether instructions were forwarded from Dublin Castle to have this done; (3) whether the constabulary were further instructed to send to Dublin Castle the name of any person whom they could identify as having posted the placards; (4) and whether he will arrange that the right of free discussion will be preserved in Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The local police, acting on their own responsibility, took down several of the placards referred to in the vicinity of Carrickmore. The reply to the second and third inquiries is in the negative. I trust that the right of free discussion in Ireland will be preserved.

  Thompson Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate, in North Longford, there are 600 acres of untenanted demesne lands at present let in grazing to surrounding occupiers; whether he is aware that this estate is insolvent and in the hands of the mortgagees, the Scottish Provident Assurance Company; and whether, as untenanted land for the settlement of evicted tenants in county Longford is scarce, he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the desirability of acquiring this estate for the benefit of evicted tenants in county Longford.
  MR. BRYCE: No application or request in respect of the sale of this estate has been made to the Estates Commissioners, and they have no information on the subject. They inform me, however, that they will communicate with the owners.

  Dr. Kenny's Estate, County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Congested Districts Board have purchased an estate from Dr. Kenny of Longford, county Galway; if so, a what date, and when may the tenants o small holdings in the neighbourhood expect that it shall be divided amongst them.
  MR. BRYCE: The Congested Districts Board's offer for the purchase of Dr. Comyn Kenny's estate at Longford, count) Galway, was accepted on 11th August 1904, but the property has not yet been vested in the Board. Until that is done the lands cannot be resold to the tenants. The matter is being expedited as much as possible.
  Asked by Mr. FIELD as to the reason for the great delay in re-selling to the tenants, Mr. BRYCE replied that the work of the Congested Districts Board was very heavy and that might account for it.

  Proposed Monument to Royal Irish Fusiliers at Armagh.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Armagh Urban Council refused permission for a monument to be erected in Armagh to the memory of the Royal Irish Fusiliers who were killed during the late South African war; whether he is also aware that a force of police was drafted into Armagh to protect certain persons in erecting and unveiling a monument to the memory of a man called Carbery, who was killed when fighting with the Boers against British troops; and will he say what was the cost to the ratepayers for the extra police, and what action, if any, does he propose taking in the matter.
  MR. BRYCE: On the 5th instant, the Armagh Urban District Council refused to grant a site opposite to the Court House for the purpose mentioned in the first part of the Question. On the 8th June, 1902, an extra force of 102 police was drafted into Armagh for the preservation of the peace in connection with the unveiling, in a cemetery, of a memorial to the person mentioned in the second part of the Question. The cost of the extra police, which fell on local rates, was
  1032
  £20 12s. 2d. The Local Government Board have no power to interfere with the discretion of the district council as to granting a site.

  Gort Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have received information of an attack made upon the house of a man named Kearney at Ballinderreen, near Gort, in the Athenry district, on the night of the 19th instant, or of the fact that six shots were fixed into the man's bedroom; and will he say whether Kearney grazes a farm from which the former tenant was evicted, and have the police any clue to the perpetrators of the outrage.
  MR. BRYCE: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Mr. Kearney is the occupier of a small grazing farm, but it is not an evicted farm. Three men have been arrested and remanded in connection with the offence.

  Attacks on Catholics at Desertmartin, Deny.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabu larly, has received an application from the clergyman of Desertmartin, county Derry, asking for additional police to protect the lives and the property of the people of the district; whether he is aware that during the past three months the houses of Catholics have been wrecked, shots fired through windows, and hayricks levelled to the ground, and that two men, named McKenna and McGeehan, are now lying dangerously ill, the result of being waylaid and beaten on the road; and if steps will be taken to protect the lives and property of the people in this district.
  MR. BRYCE: The Inspector-General received the application referred to on the 20th instant, and he is carefully considering what steps may be necessary for the preservation of the peace in this district, either in the way of strengthening the police force at neighbouring stations or forming a temporary post at Desertmartin. It is a fact that some

  1033
  offences such as are mentioned in the Question have recently been committed, and four men are at present awaiting trial for seriously assaulting the men McKenna and McGeehan. I think it better to make no statement on this latter case while proceedings are sub judice.

  Ballinacurra Sewer Works.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the works in connection with the Ballinacurra sewer at Limerick; and, if so, will he use his influence with the Board of Works to have the loan advanced with as little delay as possible, so that this work may be carried out.
  MR. BRYCE: On the 16th instant, the Local Government Board gave their sanction to the Limerick No. 1 Rural District Council for a loan of £1,500 for the purpose mentioned. It is open to the council to contract for this loan in the open market or to apply to the Board of Works for it. I am informed by the latter Board that they have not received an application for this particular loan, but that in the case of another loan applied for by the same council they have found it necessary to point out that, owing to the repeated failure of the council to fulfil their undertakings on existing loans, the Board of Works will be precluded from making further loans unless they receive reliable assurance of punctuality in future payments.

  Irish Legislation.
  MR. FINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the Bills he proposes to introduce this session.
  MR. BRYCE: I am not at present in a position to state what Bills I may be able to introduce this Session.
  MR. FINCH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are to be the instalments of the "larger policy"?
  MR. BEYCE: I suppose the hon. Member refers to the instalments connected with land purchase. I can say no more at present.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  LOUD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if further grants of money will be proposed to facilitate the operation of the Land Purchase Acts.
  MR. BRYCE: There is, and will be, a willingness on the part of His Majesty's Government to provide such further sums of money as may be from time to time needed to facilitate the operation of the Land Purchase Act.

  Church Discipline Commissioners' Report.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any probability of the Report of the Royal Commission on Church Discipline being received within the next month, so as to be in the hands of Members prior to the discussion on the Church Discipline Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.; for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Prime Minister last week to a similar question.

  Royal Commission on Canals.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the promised Royal Commission on Canals, and particularly whether he can state its constitution and terms of reference.
  MR. ASQUITH (for Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN): This business is in a forward state, and the Prime Minister hopes very shortly to make the necessary arrangements for taking His Majesty's pleasure thereon.

  Procedure Rules.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will make a statement as to the proposed alterations in the Procedure Rules.
  MR. ASQUITH: My best answer is to say that I propose to-morrow, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to move for a

  1035
  Select Committee to be appointed to consider the question of procedure in the House of Commons, and to report as to the Amendment of existing rules and any new rules which may be considered desirable for the efficient despatch of business.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Will the Committee have the power to inquire into the period of the session?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is the intention.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  John Michael Fleetwood Fuller, esquire for the County of Wilts (Western or Westbury Division).
NEW BILLS.
  POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Superannuation of Constables," presented by Mr. Herbert Samuel; to be road second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]
  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Returns and Notifications of Accidents in mines, quarries, factories, and workshops and under The Notice of Accidents Act 1894," presented by Mr. Herbert Samuel to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in Scotland; and for other purposes," presented by Major Anstruther-Gray; supported by Mr. Younger, Mr. Cochrane, Sir John Tuke, and Mr. Eugene Wason; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 7th March, am to be printed. [Bill 56.]

  BOROUGH COURT (DUBLIN) BILL.
  "To better define the jurisdiction am improve the procedure of the Borough Court of the city of Dublin; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Clancy; supported by Mr. Har-
  1036
  rington, Mr. Field, Mr. Nannetti, and Mr. Waldron; to be read a second time upon Friday, 30th March, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
  "To amend the Agricultural Holdings Acts, and to make other provisions as to the Tenure of Agricultural Land," presented by Mr. Channing; supported by Mr. Price, Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Mackarness, and Mr. Luttrell; to be read a second time upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT, upon the Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, took the Chair of the Committee as Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CIVIL SERVICES AXD REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1905–6.

  CLASS II.
  1. £130 (Supplementary), Friendly Societies Registry.
  MR. MORTONthought the Department ought to give an explanation why there was this increase of £130. It was in his opinion necessary to study economy, and he did not therefore think he need make any apology for drawing attention even to this small increase. He wished to know why it was that the original provision had not proved sufficient.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the excess was due to the appointment of a second Assistant Registrar, rendered necessary by the great increase in the amount of work. The actual salary was £600 a year, rising by annual instalments of £25 to £700. He thought his hon. friend might rest assured that no extravagant expenditure would be incurred.
  Motion put and agreed to.

  CLASS VII.
  2. £36,000 (Supplementary), Temporary Commissions.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he desired to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity of giving the Committee any information he might have with regard to the work of the War Stores Commission and the prospect of the presentation of a Report. It was appointed by the late Government to investigate into and report as to allegations made by the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler; and it was also entrusted to inquire as to the responsibility of persons concerned in the waste of stores in South Africa. He understood that the Commission had appointed some representative of its number to go to South Africa to take evidence, but up to the present time they had not had anything in the nature of an interim Report. He wished to know whether any such Report had been presented. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, some information to justify the arrest a short time ago of a number of non-commissioned officers, but he should be glad to know what further action the Government proposed to take in the matter. The Commission dealt with a public scandal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that the matter was present in the mind of the Government, and that a Report would be soon presented. He had another question to ask. He understood the Motor Car Commission had concluded taking evidence, and he wished to ask whether they could have any information as to whether a Report would be presented. Another very interesting Commission was the Local Government Board Redistribution Commission, appointed by the late Government, without any authority from the House, with a view to obtaining advice as to a Redistribution Bill to be presented. At the time their conduct was very much criticised, and it was generally recognised to be a political expedient and nothing else. He therefore thought they were entitled to ask how the money had been spent and whether the Commission was still in existence.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said the Motor Car Commission had completed its labours and the Report was in course of preparation. The Redistribution Commission had also concluded its labours, but he thought the subject of its investigations was of a confidential nature, and he could not give that fuller information which hon. Members would like.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Members of the Commission, whether they are going to Report, and what they have done with the £1,200?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not know their names; I have not seen their Report; I understand the last Government have dissolved them; and I would suggest that there the matter should rest.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that in his opinion it was infamous to demand that the public should be asked to pay for this device for prolonging the late Administration. In the very last stages of the existence of the late Government they were looking about for some pretext for living a few minutes longer, and one of the devices hit upon was to start the question of redistribution, with special reference to the Irish representation. The whole object was to cut down the representation of Ireland and not to reform the system in either England or Scotland; and was it reasonable that the public should have to pay for the designs of a mere political club organised in the Conservative interest? It was a most extraordinary thing that the President of the Local Government Board should not know anything about the Commission. He could understand documents relating to foreign affairs being kept private, though they were always made known to successive Ministries, but by what right had the late Government withheld the documents of this Commission from the present President of Local Government Board, and how was it that he regarded them as deserving of being treated as confidential? He did not object to the late or any Government keeping private their documents if they did not ask the public to pay for them, but to compel the country to pay for a partisan document seemed to him to be the most impudent thing he had known

  1039
  since he entered the House twenty years ago, and, as far as he was concerned, he had no intention of allowing the documents to remain private, so long as the demand was made that they should be paid for by the public purse. If Mr. Balfour would arrange with the right hon. Gentleman to pay for this out of the funds of the Carlton Club, he would raise no further objection. He might then keep the documents for they would interest him no more, but they would interest him very much if he found the demand that they should be paid for out of the public purse was persisted in.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he thought the House was entitled to some further information from the President of the Local Government Board. Why was this called a private document? The appointment of the Commission was announced in the House, and the names of its Members were read out by a Minister, one of them being an officer of the Local Government Board, who gave his public time for the preparation of the Commission's Report. He could not understand the ground on which they were told that the document was a private one, that they had nothing to do with it, and that they were not to see it. There was at least one if not two officers of the Local Government Board on the Commission, and it could not surely be fairly argued that the House was to have no knowledge of the Report.
  MR. MORTONsaid that what they ought to know was who had had the money and how much they had each had; and, if the right hon. Gentleman could not that day give them the information, he thought they should postpone the matter. The transaction must be known to somebody in the Local Government Board, and they ought not to pass it over without receiving the fullest information, especially as they were told that it was a mere electioneering dodge. If anyone could prove that it was not, they would have the opportunity, but no one had risen yet on the Opposition Benches. He had no doubt that they were ashamed of the expenditure themselves. They had now a Liberal Government in power, pledged to economy, and he consequently hoped that they would have the fullest information on the matter, otherwise
  1040
  he should feel obliged to vote against the Estimate altogether.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid there was one point which had not been cleared up by the President of the Local Government Board. Had the Commission completed the work for which it was appointed, and had any member of the Government a complete Report as to the work? They wanted to know whether the country had got anything at all for the £1,200 they were now asked to vote. There might be schemes of redistribution hereafter. Would the findings of this Commission be of any further value? Would they be any contribution to any such scheme?
  MR. BYLESsaid it seemed to him that they would be creating a rather dangerous precedent, if they voted money spent by somebody, they did not know who, and spent in some way, they did not know how. He considered the only way was to move that the Vote should be reduced by £1,200.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he understood the matter did not come in the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he was not in any way responsible for it. He did not think they could blame the Government at all, but this was the only opportunity they had of protesting against public money being spent in this fashion. The Commission originated in the failure of the late Government to pass certain Resolutions brought before Parliament, and it was appointed to give an indication to the public that they really meant business with regard to redistribution. It was evident that the late Government meant nothing by it; it was a Party expedient, and it was the duty of the Committee to protest against it. It was true that Mr. Gerald Balfour was nominally responsible for the matter, but he could not help expressing his surprise that no Member of the Front Opposition Bench had thought it his duty to say a single word on behalf of the late Government. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer must have some explanation as to how it came about that the expenditure was authorised. He would like to know the reasons which

  1041
  induced him to give his authority. Did he really believe the Commission was appointed in the public interest? The appointment of the Commission was an attempt to get round the House of Commons, and the matter was of importance from the point of view of precedent. How far was the Government going to be justified in spending public money without the authority of the House? This Commission was appointed to deal with a matter which was never accepted by the House. All that the House knew about it was that the late Prime Minister brought forward a series of resolutions before he had taken the trouble to study the procedure. The Commission was therefore an investigating Commission, just as if they had appointed a Commission of the Carlton Club; it was a mere fishing Commission appointed to gather sufficient information to justify the then Government in bringing in a Bill the next year. If they did not protest, where was the matter to stop? Would the Government be justified in appointing twenty Committees and in spending thousands of pounds without the authority of the House? He could imagine the protest that would come from the opposite side of the House if twenty Committees were appointed in connection with the Bills promised by the present Government. He thought the Members of the late Government, if they were not disposed to defend their own action in the matter, might give them the advantage of the information they had obtained. They were told that the papers were private, but why were they private? Perhaps the facts were against their own case, and that it was owing to that that the Report was to be kept secret. He would, however, appeal to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he had not some information to give them with regard to the matter.
  MR. VIVIANasked if it was not time that such questions as those relating to the redistribution of seats should be referred, not to a partisan Committee, but to some judicial Committee, representing all interests. There was a principle involved in the matter, and if they considered the question impartially and brought out a Report not partisan at all they would be taking a step forward. Then there was the question of spending money without the
  1042
  approval of the House. In extreme cases they might be inclined to excuse that sort of thing, but he did not see that this was an extreme case. He could understand also that if they were dealing with some great international question secrecy might be of vital importance in the public interest, but this was entirely a civil or domestic matter, and they ought to be placed in full possession of all the information.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had a great deal of sympathy with the principles enunciated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, though he differed from him in the belief he had that they applied to the facts of the present case. The Commission could not be described as a partisan Commission, for it was composed, he believed, entirely of officials.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There were two officials.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that at any rate two members of the Commission were excluded by their public service from being active partisans.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: The third gentleman is known to be an authority on local government.
  MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,continuing, said that it would also be found, when the name of the third gentleman was mentioned, that his appointment was not of a partisan character. Therefore, although he agreed that it would be not merely wrong, but something of a scandal if they appointed a partisan Commission when they sought information on which to found legislation, he absolutely denied, and he was sure he would be supported by Gentlemen opposite who knew the facts, that the Commission appointed was partisan. If the hon. Gentleman opposite objected to the appointment of Departmental Committees, he must use his influence with the present Government to alter their ways, for, although they had been in office only a few months, they had announced an unusual number of Commissions and Committees, the

  1043
  expense of which the House would be asked to authorise.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: We shall get the Reports.
  MR. MORTON: It does not follow that the money will be spent first.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that as far as the Government could tell, the House was committed to the expenditure before it was asked for its sanction. He did not complain, but the hon. Gentleman opposite below the gangway, if he wished the principles he had named to be followed, must exert very active influence on the Government. The first principle the hon. Gentleman had laid down was, he understood, that when a Commission had concluded its work, the information should be made available for the House, unless the public interest necessitated its being withheld. It was a fact that every Government and every Department had from time to time to appoint Departmental Committees, and in some cases their Reports were necessarily of a highly confidential character, and could not be published without injury to the public interest, and without, in fact, making it impossible to conduct similar inquiries successfully in future; but the Commission they were considering was not a Commission of that kind. It was a mistake to say that the House of Commons refused to pass the Resolutions submitted by the late Government. The Speaker ruled that it would be necessary to break them up into such a great number of propositions that it was impossible to proceed with the matter in the then state of business, and the Government accordingly appointed the Commission, not for a partisan purpose, but for the sake of gaining information which it was necessary to have if the seats in the House were to be redistributed more in accordance with the claims of population in the country. They appointed the Commission to ascertain the facts upon which they could subsequently ask the House to act, and if they had retained office they would of course have asked the House to act upon the Report, and would have supplied the information upon which their Bill was framed to the House. The responsibility had now passed from them, and it was no longer for them to say
  1044
  whether the information should be forthcoming or not. He had felt it his duty to explain that they had acted not only in consonance with an unbroken line of precedents, but in accordance with the common dictates of common sense.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission completed its work or whether its work was broken off in the middle?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the force of what had been said on the Ministerial side of the House. They did not say that this was a partisan Commission so far as the individual members of it were concerned, but that it was appointed for partisan purposes, that it was in fact done to save the faces of the Ministers then in office. They did not dare face the House of Commons with their Resolutions, and they therefore held a meeting at the Carlton Club and decided to withdraw them. Then behind the scenes they appointed a Commission. What he wanted to ask the President of the Local Government Board was whether he would suggest that the £1,200 ought to be levied on the right hon. Gentlemen opposite instead of asking the House to vote the money.
  MAJOR SEELYasked if there was not a precedent against the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Surely he was right in saying that on a previous occasion a Commission or Committee was appointed to inquire into redistribution proposals by a Liberal Government and that, although they went out of office before the labours of that Committee were completed, they left those labours, in view of the fact that they were performed in the public interest, to their successors. If that was so, it was a very strong precedent. He urged that when public servants were appointed to do public work their Report should be brought before the House, except when it was against the public interest that that course should be taken.
  MR. FLYNNthought that Irish Members should protest against this waste of public money. It was not necessary to raise the charge that this was a partisan Committee, but he said that the action of the late Government was of a partisan character. There was no question of urgency and no demand from Parliament, or any considerable section of Members, for the step. The whole thing was sprung upon the House at the fag end of a session without notice. It was part of the selfish and woeful mismanagement of the House that a Resolution on this subject should be brought forward which resolved itself into twelve or thirteen motions. He supposed that the money having been spent, all they could do was to register their protest, but if there were any practical means of securing it he would say that the members of the late Government who appointed this Commission without the assent of this House should be called upon to pay the money. This was a warning that Ministers should look before they leaped. The whole scheme was hastily and ill-considered and upon a partisan basis. It reflected no credit upon His Majesty's late Government.
  MR. MORTONsaid the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them what they wanted to know, and that was, who got the money.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no access at the present time to the official records. Perhaps those who have access to those records can answer the Question.
  MR. MORTONsaid the money was paid by the late Government, and surely they had got receipts for it. He thought this was an illustration of the careless way in which the affairs of the country had been administered by the late Government, under whom the expanses had increased by £50,000,000 per annum. What they wanted to know from the President of the Local Government Board, or some other official, was who had this money. These permanent officials were enjoying a handsome salary, but they appeared in addition to have got this money. The Committee were
  1046
  entitled to know how every penny of the public money had been spent.
  MR. CLANCYconsidered that there was a much more important question to consider than where the money had gone to, and that was where the Report was to be found. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he knew nothing about its contents, but if it was not in the office of the Local Government Board, where was it? Had it been taken away by some of the late Ministers and was it now to be found in one of their houses or in one of the clubs they frequented; or was it in the possession of the hon. Gentleman who ought to have it, the hon. Member for Waterford?
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid it was perfectly obvious that from time to time Governments must change, and that there were a good many matters of legislation which required to be looked into and upon which the different Departments of the Executive were bound to collect evidence and make inquiries. He desired to point out to the House how exceedingly inconvenient it would be if, whenever a change of Government happened, it were possible for the new Government to propose to leave hon. Members who had been acting upon a Committee of this kind in the position that their expenses would not be paid. This was a storm in a tea cup, and an attempt to cast discredit, upon the late Government for matters in which they were acting strictly within their rights. The desire seemed to be to call into question expenses incurred in a perfectly regular manner. Hon. Members had asked where was the Report, but it was conceivable that there was no Report, and their demands, therefore, were perfectly futile. It was perfectly obvious that there was no use in cross-examining the President of the Local Government Board as to where the Report was, becaus he said he knew nothing about it. The discussion, therefore, seemed to him to be altogether absurd.
  MR. JOHN BURNSexplained that whatever money was disbursed in connection with the investigations of this

  1047
  Committee, hon. Members could rely upon it that it had been properly paid by the Local Government Board. It would be a mistake to imply that anybody had anything to do with the expenditure in the way suggested. This Committee was appointed by the last Government, and the present Government was in no sense responsible for it. The Committee was appointed, presumably in the public interest, for a definite public object, to deal with the question of whether or not there should be a redistribution scheme. Of its scope he knew nothing, and that also applied to its object, although they might have their suspicions. As to its conclusions, he was a child in these things, and he knew nothing about them, and he could not tell whether the Report was at the Local Government Board or not. He had been otherwise and better engaged than in searching through the archives of his office to find out what the late Government had done in regard to redistribution, and he had not seen the Report. He believed the Committee sat and did some work, and reported in some way, though he knew not what way. The expenses they incurred were the amount included in the supplementary Estimate now submitted. If hon. Gentlemen thought that by postponing this question they would be able further to elucidate the questions which had been addressed to him, he should be pleased to comply with their request, but so far as he was concerned, and until he was released from what seemed to be his duty as President of the Local Government Board that afternoon, he construed that the document was confidential, and it seemed to him that it would be unjust to his predecessors, unless the Department was released from the confidence attaching to the document, to publish it. To publish it would be unfairand unbecoming, but in the event of the late Prime Minister's being returned that day for the City of London, and questions being put to him on the subject—he could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman could have anything to hide in the matter—if the right hon. Gentleman was willing to assent to the publication of the document "Barkis is willing," and he was ready to assent to its production. He had nothing to add to what he had
  1048
  said to the effect that this document must be regarded as confidential, and pending further inquiries, he might ask to be allowed to adhere to the terms of the answer he made yesterday.
  MR. WALTER LONGthought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a very fair proposal, namely, that until the late Prime Minister returned to the House he should not be released from what he considered his obligation of honour towards his predecessors. He was sure that everyone would respect and sympathise with the feelings which led the right hon. Gentleman to adopt that view, although with great respect he took a somewhat different view from him in regard to this matter. He knew nothing more than the right hon. Gentleman about the Report. He did not know what it contained, nor did he know if the Report was a concluded one. The suggestion, however, that the Report was to be of a partisan character was one, however, which must be repudiated at once. It was a Report asked for by the Department, not in a partisan sense, but in order to obtain information which was necessary, if redistribution proceedings were to be continued, and the suggestion that it was partisan in any way must fall upon the gentlemen composing; the Committee. He could say of the Local Government Board that there was no Department in the country to which one could go with such confidence to get not an ex parte, but an independent statement. Therefore he was convinced that there could be no reason whatever why, if there was a Report, it should not be made public. He gathered that the President of the Local Government Board had been occupied in very important duties and had not had time to ascertain whether this Report was in the Department or not. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should make inquiries in the Department. He would find whether the Report was there, and it was in his own discretion and that of nobody else to decide whether that Report was to be made public. There were many Reports prepared in our public Departments which, in the public interest, could not be published,

  1049
  but he did not know whether that consideration applied to this case or not. He was quite sure that Mr. Balfour was not desirous of any secrecy whatever in the matter.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the valuable suggestion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Committee should postpone the further inquiry into this Estimate. He hoped it was not proposed to postpone it for an indefinite period. It might well be postponed until the President of the Local Government Board had found out whether the document was supposititious or whether, if it was in existence, the right hon. Gentleman could see if it was to the advantage of those by whom the Commission was appointed or those who sat upon the Ministerial side of the House. The question for the Committee was what was the object for which this £1,200 was paid. It was a mere flea-bite to the last Government, but in the present Government they were all financial reformers, and they desired to check all these extravagances; and unless they commenced with these little items of £1,200 here and £3,000 there, presented on this Estimate, they would never accomplish that financial retrenchment to which they were all pledged. Another point was that there were two gentlemen put on this Committee who were public servants, and were earning salaries in other directions. If some one on the Treasury Bench who was responsible for the conduct of the Government would look into all the payments the Committee were now asked to consider, they would see that all the people put into these Commissions were public servants. It had become almost a scandal that public servants should be withdrawn from the ordinary business of their departments and put on Committees or Commissions and made the arbiters upon questions which were closely connected with the duties which they themselves were called upon day by day to discharge. It appeared to him that the whole of the expenditure of the State was controlled by persons whose business was not to decrease the expenditure but to take
  1050
  charge of the services of the State themselves.
  SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid he did not believe for one moment that any hon. Member of the Committee would suggest that he had received any of this money, in spite of what his hon. friend had said, and so far as the Report was concerned he would very much like to see it himself if it existed. The late Government originally intended to proceed by way of Bill for redistribution, but they ultimately decided to proceed by Resolution. That Resolution was brought forward in the form of an en bloc Resolution, but it was found that it could not be put en bloc and it was abandoned, because there was no time to discuss it. In justice to an absent Member it was due to Mr. Gerald Balfour that he should recall to the memory of the Committee the fact that that right hon. Gentleman stated several times that the course the late Government proposed to take was to appoint a Committee of three, of whom two were members of the Local Government Board staff and the third an eminent King's Counsel. Mr. Gerald Balfour stated distinctly that the result of the inquiries of those gentlemen would be confidential to the Government, and that on the information the then Government would be able to modify or mature the Resolution before the House into a Bill, and that then they intended to appoint Boundary Commissioners whose Report would be public property and would be brought before the House. In his recollection the propriety of the Government's course was not contested, and it was only fair that the course pursued by the Government of the day should be at the public expense
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that what the Committee were now asked to do was to pay £1,200 for a Report which no one knew anything about, or whether it was in existence. In his opinion the only way to deal with this item was to postpone further inquiry till the Report stage, and if it were then found that there was no such document in existence, he for one would refuse to pass it. The point put forward, that this document was confidential, was not sound.

  1051
  It would have been if this had been a departmental Committee, but inasmuch as this was not a departmental Committee it could not be said that its Report was confidential.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the suggestion made by the hon. Member was a reasonable one. There was an obvious desire in some quarters of the House to know more of this Report if it existed, and a desire upon the part of those who sat on the front Opposition bench for further investigation, and therefore, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion to reduce the Vote, he would agree to postpone its consideration.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that as he had not yet moved his reduction he had nothing to withdraw. When the Vote came up for Report he hoped and believed they would have an opportunity given for its discussion. He had asked another question which he thought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to answer with regard to the War Stores Commission.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that Mr. Justice Farwell had unfortunately been ill, and, in consequence, certain delay had taken place in issuing the Report. He was expecting that the Commission would finally report about the end of March, but it might be delayed a little beyond that time. Their investigation in South Africa had been undertaken by a barrister, Mr. Reeve, who had, he believed, executed his work with extreme skill and energy, and certain arrests had been made in consequence. There had been, however, no official communication yet received upon this or as to whether the trials of the persons charged had taken place.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he had gathered that a large number of people had been prosecuted, and he would like to know whether in each case the individual who was responsible for giving or conveying bribes was also going to be prosecuted, because it seemed to him that that person was very much more guilty than the poor non-commissioned officer who might have received a bribe.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he could only repeat that no Report had yet been isssued by the Commission.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that various arrests had been made.
  MR. MCKENNA: No; I understand so.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Then he cannot say whether they have been in this country?
  MR. McKENNA: They have not been in this country.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid he understood certain officers were placed under arrest in this country. Could the Financial Secretary of the Treasury find out who they were and whether arrests were still being made, and, if so, whether any decision had been arrived at?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he had been informed that there had been certain soldiers suspended, but he did not understand that any soldier had been placed under arrest.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give fuller information on the Report stage?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he could not promise that, because the Commission was a statutory one, and there was no authority for asking them for information on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDcalled attention to the item of £100 for travelling expenses for the London Locomotion Commission. Were they expected to believe that the expenses were exactly that sum? It was time that with regard to a number of those items the House should have some information as to the basis on which they were framed.
  MR. MCKENNAthought the hon. Member would agree that it would be very undesirable to introduce a supplementary Estimate, say for £60 or £70, which might not be certain to cover the

  1053
  amount, which was, however, not very arge. It referred to a considerable number of people, and although each item might be small the total was roughly put at £100. Of course, if the money were not spent it would be surrendered at the end of the year and would go to the reduction of the National Debt.
  MR. MORTONsaid, regarding the total cost of the London Locomotion Commission, that the £1,700 was, of course, in addition to the large sum of money previously voted. What had been the total expenses of the Commission? Who comprised the Advisory Committee, the fees and expenses of which on the supplementary Estimate amounted to £850. These Commissions of Inquiry, especially Royal Commissions, were very expensive, and it would be advisable, if they were to economise public money, that more details should be furnished as to how the money was expended.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the Advisory Committee was appointed early in 1904. A provision was made in the Estimates of last year of £10,000 for the expenses of the Board, but the whole of that was not expended. This £850 was a re-vote of the sum not exp nded last year which was carried to the Sinking Fund. As regarded the total cost of the Commission he would give the figures later on.
  MR. MORTONasked what was the Feeble-Minded Commission referred to in the Estimate. How had the sum of £3,450 against it been expanded.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that the expenses covered the investigations of doctors receiving £3 3s. a day for a day's work of eight hours.
  MR. MORTONsaid he observed an item of £1,200 for the Poor Law Commission, but there was not the slightest explanation of what it was for. The supplementary Estimate also showed that the total original Estimate for temporary Commissions was £32,804, and a further sum was now required of £36,000. It was an example of how the money of the country was spent, and how to a very large extent it was wasted.
  MR. MCKENNAhoped his hon. friend would understand that these Estimates were prepared by the late Government and the information for which he asked was to a certain extent not in the hands of the present Government. The policy of the appointment of these Commissions would be better explained by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Poor Law Commission was appointed List year, and the Chairman was Lord George Hamilton.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked if any fresh appointments had been made to the Feeble-Minded Commission since the present Government came into office.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid a number of requests had been communicated to the Government to enlarge the scope and personnel of the Commission, and these requisitions had been considered by the Government. The additional names had not yet been decided upon.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has any fresh appointment on the Commission been made since the present Government came into office?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Not definitely.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £10,000 Vote, Milan Exhibition, 1906.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that there was an extraordinary note at the bottom of this Estimate which stated that—
  "The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor - General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on the 31st March, 1906, will not be liable to surrender on that date."
  That was rather an unusual note. This Grant-in-Aid was given and they were not to have access to inhumation as to the way in which it was to be spent. He hoped the present Government were not responsible for this Estimate. He did not think that a proviso of this sort ought to be inserted in any Estimate, and it was a perfect farce to ask them to take an interest in the Estimates if they prevented the officials of this House from taking the necessary precaution to

  1055
  see the money was not wasted. He hoped they would have a satisfactory explanation.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that applications of this kind were constantly made to the Treasury, and very constantly they had to be refused. The number of exhibitions during the last ten years had been large, and the amount of money expended was serious. He wished to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that the sporadic and irregular manner in which grants were made to these international exhibitions ought to be made a subject of inquiry by this Parliament. He noticed that the Treasury were responsible for the granting of this £10,000, but he could not help thinking that the Treasury was the wrong Department to deal with these grants. Such matters ought to be accounted for to the Treasury by the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was most in touch with the Consular service. The Treasury was essentially the wrong Department to deal with expenditure of this character. Matters relating to international exhibitions ought to be arranged almost entirely by the Board of Trade. When an application of this character was made to the British Government, it generally came from an irresponsible body of merchants in the particular country where the exhibition was being arranged. A Commission was appointed which contained a great number of ornamental names of persons who never attended, and they had no records before them and no continuity of policy. Sometimes it was the Chamber of Commerce, and in another case it was the Royal Engineers, and so on, and he thought the Government would do well to consider if some small permanent body could be set up to whom all such applications might promptly be referred. They would then have a body to whom all these applications could be made, and from whom applicants could receive skilled and professional advice. These applications often come late in the day, and then there was a scramble for sites, with the result that the commercial and industrial activity of this country was seldom shown to advantage. He would no doubt be told that he
  1056
  was asking the Government to set up a new department which would cost money, but if the Secretary to the Treasury would investigate this question he would find that the unbusinesslike way in which the Commissions had been managed was such that the waste of expenditure would run into scores and scores of thousands of pounds. If they had a small permanent body, he could name three or four competent people who would undertake to do the directing work gratis, and for the sum of £150 or £200 a year, they could allocate specially some skilful clerk from the Board of Trade for this purpose, who would record all the information, keep the accounts, be in touch with all these matters, and who would be able to advise the Treasury whenever these applications were made. In nine cases out of ten the applications ought to be promptly refused. He did not ask the hon. Member for an answer at the present moment, but he trusted that he would undertake to look into this matter in a sympathetic manner, because he was convinced that it was the best measure they could adopt to prevent extravagance in this matter of international exhibitions.
  MR. PAULasked why this money should not be accounted for to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He should like to know what right the Government or the Treasury had to withhold any information from the Auditor-General, who was a public officer, quite independent of the Treasury and responsible only to this House.
  MR. R. DUNCANthought they ought not to spend the taxpayers money upon exhibitions in countries which kept our goods out by prohibitive tariffs.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he entirely agreed with the general observations of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs and the hon. Member for Northampton with regard to the advisability of all public accounts being submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. But the circumstances in this case were very exceptional. The grant of £10,000 had been made, and he did not take any

  1057
  responsibility for the expenditure of the money and the grant was a final one. As a rule a certain method was adopted. They usually retained control, and if the amount granted was not found sufficient there was generally a fresh demand made upon the Treasury to increase the amount. That course had been adopted in the case of other exhibitions. In the present case they had decided once for all that the grant should be £10,000 and no more, and the grant having been made it was entrusted to the Commissioners to expend the money. As a matter of fact they had stipulated that an audit should be made and shown to the Treasury, but they did not ask that the accounts should be audited by a department of the Government. The noble Lord made some ingenious suggestions as to a department being set up for the special consideration of applications for grants for foreign exhibitions. He would remind him that at the present moment foreign exhibitions were in the Department of the Foreign Office, and Colonial Exhibitions in the Department of the Colonial Office. Neither, he thought, were in the Department of the Treasury. They were accounted for by the Treasury, but the applications were not primarily settled or decided by the Treasury. The expenditure was controlled by the Treasury. He did not quite gather from the noble Lord whether he proposed that the department which he would set up should be independent of the Treasury with regard to control of expenditure, because if he made any such proposal as that, he could not even pretend that it would be considered with sympathy. There could be only one department of the State to control expenditure. If they were to sub-divide control it would be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to make up his Budget for the year.
  LORD BALCARRES: I did not suggest anything of the kind.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that in regard to the suggestion to appoint a special officer of the Board of Trade to take control of the management of exhibitions, he would submit the matter to his right h m. friend the President of the Board of Trade who, he had no doubt, would
  1058
  give it his most sympathetic consideration. A grant to the exhibition of Marseilles was refused on the ordinary lines regulating the Treasury procedure in granting these sums. In the present case Milan was made an exception to the ordinary rule. As a general rule a grant was sanctioned only in a case where a foreign exhibition was conducted by the Government of the country where it was held and where it was held in the capital of the country. The Milan Exhibition was not primarily undertaken by the Italian Government and it was not to be held in the capital of Italy. Special representations were made to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who, for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman thought were sufficient, and which he himself had no doubt were sufficient, agreed to this special grant's being made. He thought the House would be perfectly agreed that the sum in question was not excessive. In the case of Marseilles no special reason was shown why the Government should depart from the usual rule, and accordingly the request was refused.
  MR. AUSTEX CHAMBERLAINsaid the Financial Secretary of the Treasury had perfectly correctly stated the rules upon which the Treasury had been accustomed to act in this matter, not only during the short time he himself presided over that office, but also under his predecessors. He thought the hon. Gentleman would find, as he and his predecessors had found, that there was considerable difficulty in dealing with the applications received for grants to exhibitions. The Treasury had tried to limit the number of applications it would receive and to maintain the rule under which grants were made. The rule was that the exhibition was to be national and held in the capital of the country where it took place. But it had been recognised that to the rule there must occasionally be exceptions, and exceptions had sometimes been made for political and other reasons. By political reasons he meant where it was thought desirable in the national interest that there should be the interchange of courtesy which representation at such an exhibition involved. This led to special grants being made for the exhibitions at St. Louis and Chicago.

  1059
  The exhibition at Milan was a national exhibition, the first national industrial exhibition held in the Kingdom of Italy. Although it did not fulfil the other Treasury condition of being held in the capital, it was pointed out with unanswerable force by parties interested that Rome was not the natural place for an industrial exhibition, that Milan was the industrial capital, and that for an exhibition of this kind must be considered the capital of Italy. Therefore, though in the first instance he refused to make any grant to this exhibition, because it did not literally fulfil the regulations they had endeavoured to maintain, he, on the further representations which were made to him, and on receiving assurances both from the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade of their interest in the matter and of their desire that the British Government should be officially represented, and especially on being advised by the Board of Trade that this was a matter that concerned the trade of the country, he undertook to allow a grant and not to present a Supplementary Estimate this year as the hon. Gentleman had done, but to propose to the House of Commons in the regular course of the Estimates in the next Parliamentary year a grant similar to that which had now been laid before the Committee. He took no exception to the very natural course which the hon. Gentleman had pursued. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman desired as far as possible to wind up all the liabilities of the late Government in these Supplementary Estimates, and he did not for a moment criticise that decision. He need not say that if the Vote were challenged he would give it all the support in his power, for it embodied a proposal he had intended to make to the House. As to the procedure which had been commented on, he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite had fairly explained the reasons which had led him to adopt it. It was customary to treat a grant-in-aid in this way. A grant-in-aid was not an Estimate in the ordinary sense. It was a definite contribution made once and for all, and with that contribution the liability of the Government ceased.
  MR. DALZIEL: Is the money limited to expenditure on the British part of the exhibition?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was limited to representing British trade in a particular Exhibition—in this case Milan Exhibition. If the whole of the money was not required for the purpose for which it was voted, the balance would be surrendered to the Exchequer. What was more likely to happen was. that not only would the £10,000 be spent in securing a fitting representation of British trade, but that a considerable sum would be raised by Chambers of Commerce, or from private sources, for the same purpose. In regard to the general question as to whether the Treasury was or was not the best Department to deal with these applications, he entirely concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the financial control of the Treasury must remain complete. It must be for the Treasury to say whether they would give a grant in any particular case or not. The suggestion of his noble friend was not to traverse that control, but there was something in the suggestion that when applications of this kind were made—and they were not infrequently received—it might be of service to the Treasury to have a small permanent Committee who would examine the claims put forward in support of each exhibition and digest the cases for the Treasury. Probably the Committee would themselves be able to decline to submit a considerable number of the applications to the Treasury. He thought that generally the Treasury would not go behind their Committee, but the responsibility and control of the Treasury to grant or refuse applications would still remain complete. He viewed this expenditure for representing British trade in foreign exhibitions with very considerable suspicion. He shared the view of his hon. friend, who expressed doubt as to whether the money was well expended in securing the representation of British trade where heavy tariffs were constantly limiting the trade which that expenditure was intended to promote. He was inclined to think that the money spent for this purpose was of little use except in cases where the exhibitions were of a character, or situated in places to attract visitors on a large scale from what were known as neutral markets—South American markets for instance. He did not pretend to dogmatise on this

  1061
  matter, but it was a conclusion which he had been tempted to arrive at through communications he had had at different times—long before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as when he held that office—from gentlemen engaged in British industry and commerce. He thought, for instance, that our participation in an exhibition in Paris probably did not lead to any great extension of our trade in France—certainly not to any permanent extension. If it led to a momentary extension, local manufacturers very soon found out what was going on, and they undertook to supply their own market. But an exhibition in Paris was visited by possible customers from other countries where we did not suffer from the same restrictions. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord in no unfriendly spirit, and with no idea of depriving the Treasury of any of the control it possessed now, and which it must always possess over the national expenditure.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the matter of this grant in a fair way. The suggestion of the noble Lord was very absurd, and he was surprised that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given it his support. The Treasury must take the responsibility of dealing with applications, and if they wished to get advice they could get it from the experts of the Departments. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished that advice he could get it without putting the responsibility on any such sub-committee. He thought that the control ought to be complete; but his hon. friend behind him misunderstood the present situation. If a grant were given by municipalities, as was sometimes the case, to an exhibition of this kind, it was donated on a certain ground; he did not think the municipality could ask for the details as to how that sum was expended, but they must be satisfied that any amount not expended for the purpose for which the original sum was voted would be returned. He must say, however, that the foot-note was misleading.
  MR. MORTONthought that these accounts should go before the Auditor-General, because, unless they did, how could it be known that the money was properly expended? He was sure that the understanding of the House was that the details of the expenditure of every sum voted, except the Secret Service Fund, should go before the Auditor-General, who was an independent official, and whose salary could not be discussed by the House, and that he should be allowed to see them. Even in regard to the Secret Service money there were certain officials who certified that it had been expended in a certain manner. It would not do to say that a lump sum was given to a Commissioner who was told "You can do what you like with it."
  MR. PAULsaid he had followed the very clear statement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on matters of policy, but even after the exposition of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh there was a constitutional point which he wished to put. If the Auditor General wished to see the details of the expenditure under these grants-in-aid, what right had the Treasury to withhold them or any part of them?
  MR. DALZIELthought there had been very little defence of this Vote before the Committee. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he had viewed the Vote with suspicion, and he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, holding these views, had consented to it. At the same time, this country ought to be represented in all great exhibitions abroad, because they undoubtedly led to an extension of trade. What was the use of the Treasury making a rule which they were going to break on an occasion? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer broke it because certain strong representations had been made to him in regard to it; but up to the present time he did not see how an exception had been made in regard to the Milan Exhibition. He did not adopt in any respect whatever the suggestion put forward by the Treasury that it was their duty to give a grant-in-aid and then to have nothing more

  1063
  to do with it. Surely the Treasury was strong enough to say "We give a certain amount for a certain purpose; we will not give any more," and to adhere to that condition. If any money was given at all, the Public Accounts Committee should be able to demand of right to know how the money was spent. If that were not done a premium would be given to bad expenditure and a waste of public money.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINasked to whom this grant-in-aid of £10,000 was to be paid? Who was to take charge of the money, and how was it to be spent? Was it to be expended on an exhibition of British industry in Milan, or was it going to cover the expenses of the Commission going to Milan? Was this a Commission belonging to the British Government, to represent British trade interests at that exhibition? Another question he had to ask was, whether among these exhibits there were any from Ireland? For Ireland would have to pay its share of the cost of the Commission. He wanted to know in what way Ireland would benefit by all this expenditure?
  MR. McKENNAthought that the hon. Member's Questions were reasonable. The fund was granted to a commission or committee, the members of which were nominated by the London and other Chambers of Commerce, the Chairman of which was Lord Brassey, and the hon. treasurer Mr. Felix Schuster. His hon. friend was a little mistaken in regard to the auditing of the accounts. It was quite true that the Auditor-General did not audit them in detail, but he would see that the £10,000 was given to the Commission in a lump sum, not to do with it exactly as they pleased, but for the purposes for which the Commission was appointed. The practice was that the details of expenditure were audited by an auditor appointed by the Commission itself, and that audit ought certainly to be sent to the Treasury.
  MR. MORTONsaid that therefore the audit provided by Parliament itself was no audit at all.
  MR. McKENNA: I do not agree to that.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether it would not be a salutary rule if a public audit went with all Votes of public money in such cases?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that his hon. friend behind him had stated the usual practice of the House. In this case the Comptrolle and Auditor-General, although he would audit the payment of the £10,000 as a whole, would not audit the details of the payment, but the Treasury would accept the audit of the Commission itself, and if the whole of the £10,000 had not been spent, they would expect repayment. Where public money was going to be spent abroad, it did not seem to him undesirable that they should make the grant in a lump sum, and get rid of all responsibility, by keeping the audit to the persons to whom it was paid. Chambers of Commerce would be able to make representations to the Committee.
  MR. JOYCEinquired if Irish Chambers of Commerce could make representations.
  MR. McKENNAsaid there was no limit upon the Chambers of Commerce who could make representations to the Committee. If Chambers of Commerce wished to make representations the would be communicated to the Committee.
  MR. R. DUNCANspeaking with the most earnest desire for the industrial interests of England, Ireland, and Scotland, doubted the wisdom of facilitating the exhibition of the products of this country in foreign lands which were trying to exclude our imports by tariffs. We sometimes exhibited the results of long and painful trials and costly experiments, and so educated producers who would give us no chance whatever of effecting sales in their markets. This was not good business.
  MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he was very reluctant to intervene, and he did not know whether his hon. friend had moved a reduction of the

  1065
  Vote or not. If it had not been moved he hoped it would be, because a more unsatisfactory mode of audit could not be conceived than that which appeared to have been adopted in this case. They were told that the Commission would in due course audit the expenditure, but he did not understand that the gentlemen who would have the expenditure of this £10,000 would be under any obligations to furnish any vouchers to the Commission. It was most dangerous that a large or even a small sum of money should be paid for public purposes and to deprive the public of the protection of public audit.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he did not quite understand the explanation. The hon. Gentleman, as he understood, said that if there was any sum over it would be surrendered. Did that mean that that amount would run over to another year, and if there was any money left it would be surrendered?
  MR. McKENNAsaid his hon. friend was correct in his supposition.
  Vote agreed.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  4. £9,000 (Supplementary), Customs.

  CLASS III.
  5. £1,600 (Supplementary) Irish Land Commission.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had put down a Motion to reduce this Vote by £100, not with the object of reducing the Vote, he need hardly say, but with the object of endeavouring to obtain some information as to the regulations issued by the Chief Secretary. On looking into the Vote he had some doubt whether it would be in order to call attention to the regulations, and he should be glad to have the Chairman's ruling.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Any discussions of the regulations issued or to be issued by the Chief Secretary would not be in order on this Vote, which is merely for interest and sinking fund on the landlord's bonus.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Perhaps I may be allowed to put a question to the representative of the Irish Office as to whether these regulations will be laid upon the Table.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)said the Chief Secretary would be in his place in a moment to answer the question.
  MR. CLANCYsaid perhaps the Chairman would consider the advisability of straining the rules in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement upon the subject of the regulations—his own regulations; they formed such an interesting subject that he did not think it would be too much to ask the Committee to relax its rules in order to allow them to be discussed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must adhere to my ruling upon that.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLthought there ought to be some explanation of this question. Last year it would be remembered that the House in Committee of Supply cut off £100 from the Irish Land Commission Vote. The Government of the day were defeated. He should like to know how the Land Commission had managed to get on without that £100. If it could do without £100 perhaps also it might be able to do without £1,000, and perhaps the expenditure of the Land Commission might be reduced. The Attorney General or the Solicitor General might explain what this money was needed for. He had been asked by several Irish Members what this Supplementary Vote meant, and he himself would like to know how the Land Commission managed to get on without the £100.
  MR. MCKENNA: The explanation of this particular sum of £1,600 is a little bit complicated. It is purely financial, and it has nothing to do with the policy of the Irish Government. The Committee will remember that under the Act of 1903 a bonus was given amounting to 12 per cent, upon the purchase-money to the landlords, and

  1067
  the money needed for the payment of this bonus was obtained by the issue of Irish land stock. An Estimate is made at the beginning of the year by the National Debt Commissioners of the amount of money which will be required for the purpose of the bonus. As the market dislikes having issues of Irish land stock made frequently in the course of the year, the practice is to issue the amount once and for all at the beginning of the year. As a result of that the National Debt Commissioners hold at the beginning of the year an amount of money in their hands which they do not immediately need, but which they expect will be required in the course of the year for the payment of the bonus. The Committee will remember that the interest and payment of the sinking fund on the bonus money is borne upon the Votes, and it is in respect of certain portions of this interest and sinking fund that the Supplementary Estimate is now asked for. The National Debt Commissioners hold the money for the issue of the stock in their hands from the beginning of the year, and they endeavour lend that money until it is required, in order that they may get the interest thereon in reduction of the amount of the Vote. Last year they were perfectly successful in their operation, and no Supplementary Estimate was required; but this year when the National Debt Commissioners proposed to lend the money they found the Japanese had applied for and taken off the market all the Treasury Bills the Government offered. They found also that another medium of loan by them—loans in respect of advances on credit of Ways and Means—was closed to them as, owing to the Finance Act of last year and the issue of Exchequer bonds, the Government was under no necessity to borrow money for the purpose of Supply. Consequently the National Debt Commissioners were unable to lend the money, and as a result the amount put in the Votes in respect of the bonus fell short of the actual sum required by £3,200. £1,600 of that has been made up by savings out of the Votes, and the balance, £1,600, is the sum which is now asked for. I do not know whether I have made the matter sufficiently clear.
  MR. MORTONsaid the present Government when in Opposition knocked £100 off the Irish Land Commissioners. Now they were putting it on again. He hoped the present Government would economise in dealing with our money in the management of Irish affairs. It should be understood that it was the money of the country which was being spent. He asked the present Secretary to bear in mind with regard to this matter that if he could reduce the cost of the government of Ireland by about a half he would get a better Government.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTrose to complain of the delay in the operations of the Land Commission in subdividing holdings under the Labourers' Act.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that question does not arise on this Estimate.
  MR. McKENNAsaid his hon. friend had asked about the £100. The deficiency which had to go upon the Vote9 would have been £3,200, but there had been a saving on the general expenditure of £1,600. Out of that saving he had put down £100.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,)said it might not be regular under the Ruling of the Chair to go into the general question, but he might be permitted to answer the Question of the right hon. Member for S. Dublin with regard to the land regulations. The new regulations had already appeared in the Gazette, and there could be no objection at all to laying them on the table of the House.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS V.
  6. £500 (Supplementary), Diplomatic and Consular Services.
  MR. BOLANDcalled attention to the question of the publication of the diplomatic and consular reports which, he complained, were of no use to Ireland in the form in which they were published, although, he said, they could be made most useful. He pointed

  1069
  out that the reports gave no statistics as to the imports and exports to and from Ireland as distinct from England, but that the Consuls lumped all the figures together in a way that was perfectly bewildering; with the exception of the reports of the Consuls at Boston and Philadelphia he had seen none which were of real use to Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMANdid not think the question to which the hon. Member referred was in order upon this Estimate.
  MR. MORTONasked why there should be so large an increase as £2,600 for the delimitation of the Anglo-German boundary east of Lake Victoria. Why had the Estimate for that purpose been exceeded by £2,600?
  THE SECRETAHY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GRBY,)said that the excess amount of this Vole was caused by the fact that the Anglo-German Boundary Commission had undertaken more work than was originally anticipated, as well as occupying a longer time. The Joint Committee was despatched in July, 1902, for the delimitation of the Anglo-German boundary east of Lake Victoria, and in 1903 the British Commission found an opportunity of doing more work in the same region. It was cheaper to under-take the work by a Commission near the spot than by sending out a separate Commission. Finally, the Commission was detained a little longer than had been anticipated.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £54,683, Newfoundland Fisheries Indemnity.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid the point at issue in this Amendment was an important one. Under the recent treaty with France we were conferring a great boon upon the people of Newfoundland, and he contended that the Newfoundlanders ought to pay this indemnity and not the people of Great Britain and Ireland. Many people argued that this was an Imperial matter, but who were the people who benefited? By the Treaty of 1783,
  1070
  the French were confirmed in certain eights over a large portion of the coast of Newfoundland. So strong was the confirmation that the English King undertook to prevent his subjects from disturbing the French fishermen by competition with them. In other words only a portion of the island was ours absolutely; our rights on the French shore were subject to the superior rights conceded to the French. The people of Newfoundland when local self-government was conferred upon them, acquired only such rights as we before possessed. But they had never been content to accept that limitation, and had constantly been trying to oust the French. He did not altogether blame them. They believed there were minerals there, and believed that their position would be improved if the French were excluded. From the British point of view, however, their demand was extremely disagreeable, because it put us in the position of either appearing to evade our treaty with France or of being compelled to coerce our own Colony. In 1891 Lord Salisbury introduced in the House of Lords a Bill for coercing the Colony of Newfoundland because it refused to carry out the terms of the treaty with France. Lord Salisbury then pointed out that it was impossible to come to a settlement with France because of the unreasonableness of the demands of the Colonists. Now at last the Colonists had secured everything they asked for, but doubly at our cost. In the first place, in order to induce the French to go out of Newfoundland this country had conceded to France territory in the Colony of Gambia, a group of islands off the coast of West Africa, and a large slice of Northern Nigeria—all for the sake of 200,000 Newfoundlanders. In the second place the private rights of French fishermen had to be dealt with, and it was agreed that we should pay compensation, which had been fixed by arbitration at £54,000. This sum Parliament was now asked to pay in order to compensate the French fishermen for abstaining from fishing on the French shore of Newfoundland. But who benefited by that? Clearly the Newfoundlanders, and therefore they ought to pay. It was said that the Colony was poor,

  1071
  but he found that the Chief Justice of the Colony, writing not long ago, spoke of his own Colony as a "large and wealthy Colony" of British subjects. He repudiated the argument that because there were some poor people in Newfoundland that therefore the island should have something for nothing. It seemed to him an absolutely immoral doctrine. At whose expense were they to have it? Were there no poor people in England or Ireland? Irish fishermen would be taxed in order to increase the profits of the Newfoundland fishermen, who were probably much better off than were the Irish fishermen. This question also raised the whole issue of the way in which the late Government and former Governments lavished money on any Colony that chose to hold out its hand. In 1881 the Civil expenditure of the Colonies was only £72,000; in 1897 it was £294,000, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham discovered the Empire, and took charge of the Colonies, and during his administration the expenditure rose to nearly £1,500,000. This was one of the items of that huge expenditure placed upon the people of this country by the policy of always voting money whenever a Colony chose to ask for it, and though it might be said that this particular sum was small, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speak with contempt of a sum of £50,000, and would be glad indeed to lay his hand on it. He ventured to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the stand he had taken with regard to economy generally, because it was not only from the Colonies, but from every quarter that little or big sums were being demanded, and, except the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was no one to protect the money of the taxpayer or the credit of the country. It was said that this country could not go back—that the money had been already paid out of the Treasury chest and the chest must be filled up again. Yes, but there was nothing to prevent this country demanding from the Colony the repayment of money they clearly owed to us. He would like to press this point upon the Government, and, further, to urge that a
  1072
  a stop should be put to the practice of allowing the Colonies to have everything they chose to ask for. We had for too long been pouring out our substance for the benefit of people whose natural resources were at least as great as our own, and whose burdens were very much lighter, but who, in spite of that fact, contributed not one penny to the expense of maintaining the Empire.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not for a moment question the right or propriety of my hon. friend in raising the merits of this question, but, at the same time, it is too late in the day now to go back on what has been done. It was arranged and understood and settled in the last House of Commons that the compensation which should be found due to the French fishermen for giving up the rights on the Treaty Shore of Newfoundland was to be paid by the House of Commons. The actual amount follows the general agreement with France, and that has been settled in the terms described by the agreement between the British and French Governments. The question whether the amount should be paid by the House of Commons or by the Colony is one which, I assume, was considered carefully by the late Government when they made the arrangements which have resulted in the present payment. I suppose what influenced them in deciding that it was the House of Commons they would ask to make this payment and not the self-governing Colony of Newfoundland was that they were engaged in a large operation of policy with regard to France, and that what they were making was not a settlement of individual matters each on its merits, but the settlement of one Imperial matter against another Imperial matter, the object of the whole being to arrive at a good and friendly understanding with the French Government. And so they regarded the whole as a matter of Imperial policy, with regard to which the conduct of negotiation, and even the adjustment of details, should be kept entirely in the hands of the Imperial Government. If they had made the payment of this money dependent on a vote of the Colonial Legislature, it would

  1073
  have been necessary to carry with them step by step, in all the negotiations which resulted in the entente, the consent of the Colony. That would greatly have impeded the negotiations between his Majesty's Government and the French Government; and I would ask the Com mittee—if it be the case, as I am sure it is, that in this House of Commons the entente and understanding with the French Government is as popular as it was in the last House—not to press points of detail of this kind, which undoubtedly must raise difficult questions between the Imperial Government and the self-governing Colony. I think we have gone too far now to ask the Colony to pay this money. The last House of Commons passed an Act in which it was enacted that any sums payable by way of indemnity or for expenses incurred should be defrayed by Parliament. That was an announcement by the last Parliament to the Colony that we and not they would be responsible for the payment of the money when the actual sum had been determined. I do not think it is possible for this House of Commons to reverse what was done by the last House with respect to the Colony of Newfoundland. For the present House of Commons to resolve to go to the Colony and say, "We think the last House of Commons was too generous to you, and we mean to ask you to pay this £54,000 which the last House of Commons gave you to understand the Mother Country would pay"—that would be an unfortunate start in the relations of the present Parliament and the Colony. It would not be good business, and it would not be good policy. But I agree with my hon. friend to this extent—that I think the Colony ought to recognise that in dealing with this matter of Imperial policy we have dealt with them very generously; that the Mother Country has set them free from what was a great embarrassment and concern and difficulty. The old Treaty of Utrecht was originally a matter of Imperial policy, the new understanding with France has been regarded as a matter of Imperial policy, and Newfoundland has derived great benefit from the French rights being put into a form which is no longer embarrassing I hope the Colony will recognise, after this Vote is passed,
  1074
  that the Imperial Government has desired to deal very generously with them, and that in this matter of Imperial policy they have found Imperial interests so handled by the Mother Country as to confer considerable benefit on the Colony.
  SIR HOWARDVINCENTthanked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his admirable statement. He had not heard the whole of the speech by the hon. Member for Preston, but he was there to hear the hon. Member's concluding remarks, and he certainly disagreed with them. Newfoundland was the oldest of the great self-governing Colonies, and he knew from experience that the Colony laboured under the disadvantages of a very poor soil and a treacherous climate. The treaty as regarded the French shore of Newfoundland was decided without any consultation with the Colony. It dealt with a great grievance which had existed many years and might have caused severe complications involving us in misunderstanding, if not in warlike operations. The late Government in doing away with this long-standing grievance, this perpetual sore between the fishermen of Newfoundland and the French fishermen, did an enormous service to the relations between England and France. He was astonished that any hon. Member who had studied the subject at all should speak of our oldest Colony in the terms which had been used by the hon. Member for Preston.
  MR. MORTONdid not agree that the money should be paid by the Colony. The Colony had nothing to do with creating the difficulty or the trouble. It was an Imperial matter, and he was pleased that the late and the present Governments had agreed that this was a proper sum to be paid from Imperial sources for the settlement of a grievance which had caused the expenditure of large sums of money otherwise, and had been a trouble, which, it was to be hoped by this Vote, would be ended. He hoped this country would be able to settle all its difficulties with foreign countries as easily as this one had been.
  Vote agreed to.
  8. £8,567, Samoa Arbitration Claims.
  MR. MORTONsaid he would like to know something about this new item of expenditure before it was passed.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid his hon. friend had described this as a new item, but it was a very old story. In 1899 a state of civil war arose in Samoa, and the representatives of the British and American Governments on the spot took steps to deal with it. A certain amount of damage was done to property, and it was claimed that the British and American Governments were responsible for the damage caused by the action of their forces. The Germans also had a considerable number of subjects there who claimed for damage to their property. Although the arbitrator did not fix any sum, he established that the British and American Governments were responsible for the damage, and the British, American and German Governments were left to settle the matter as to the actual figures of the damages out of court. That took a considerable time, and it was only last April that the Foreign Office were in a position to estimate what the actual amount would be, and consequently they did not know that it would have to be paid out of the revenue for the present year. That was the reason why it was not included in the annual Estimates last year. It was agreed on behalf of Germany that something like £8,000 should be paid to German subjects, and this had been paid by the United States and this country. The United States had subjects whose property was damaged and so had this country, and it was agreed that each country should pay the claims of its own citizens. The British claims amounted to £3,635. Other small claims had been paid to Danish subjects, and that was how this item had arisen.
  MR. MORTONsaid he was exceedingly obliged to his right hon. friend for his very clear statement. He was sure it would be acknowledged that he was entitled to that explanation before his money went.
  Progress reported.
  MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair.
  Resolutions to be reported To morrow; Committee to sit again To morrow.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, that a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Barnard, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Dalziel, Viscount Helmsley, Mr. John Deans Hope, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Lea, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. McKillop, Mr. Power, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Thorne, Mr. Walrond, and Mr. Osmond Williams.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting Mr. Speaker left the Chair until this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  THE LAW OF TRUCK.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEin moving "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary to put an end to fines and deductions from wages," said ii was perhaps a happy chance that the first occupation of time on the part of private Members of this House in the beginning of a new Parliament should be an occupation of time on behalf of a labour question of a practical description. This particular question of Truck was one of a severely painful kind, and it was also in the position of being ripe for further legislation. Timid legislation had been repeatedly tried in connection

  1077
  with this question and had repeatedly failed, and the time had come for heroic legislation. The question affected every class of labour in this country, including labour in shops and, for certain purposes, even agricultural labour, and the time had come when stronger remedies must be tried than had been tried in the past. The first Truck Act, the Act of 1831, was so good an Act that had it been enforced in modern times, had it not been killed by judge-made law, the country would have had very little to complain of. The abuses that had grown up under that Act, and which now could only be changed by heroic legislation, would have failed to have come into being at all. The Truck Act of 1831 if it was read by any Member of this House who had no acquaintance with it, either as a lawyer, a sucking statesman, or as an employer or one employed, would be satisfied with that Act. He would say it was a reasonable Act, and that there was little to complain of in it. Our legislation with regard to Truck seemed on the surface to be better than that of any other country of Europe, but the Truck Acts of Germany and those of Belgium and Russia, which were held to be the worst, were far better Acts than ours in the working. The principle of the Truck Act of 1831, which was the governing Act, forbade the payment of wage otherwise than in current coin of the realm: that was the first principle. The second principle was that the whole wage arranged should be paid with certain exceptions, which were distinctly named, such as for "miners' explosives," the exceptions to be agreed to in writing, and to be a sum not more than the actual value of the article, or cost, or loss, to the employer. That was a thoroughly clear law, and would have been satisfactory had it been acted upon, but it had unfortunately been upset by decisions in the Courts of law. Fourteen years after the Act of 1831, the first great case was decided, and decided against the intentions of that Act. The Act was virtually upset by a decision in the Courts of law where it was decided in a most extraordinary fashion that under the Act of 1831 it was legal to make deductions for "frame rents" in hosiery. Nothing came of that decision, which
  1078
  was in 1845, immediately, but in 1859 the full mischief of it was seen. In 1859 a case came before the Court in which there was a large number of fines and deductions. There were deductions for fire, for gas, for power, and what were called fines for discipline, for unpunctuality and so forth. All those things were involved in that case, and a most extraordinary result followed the first decision given with regard to it. The first decision was on the lines of the case of 1845. Then there was that appeal, which in the feeble state of the Trades Unions of that time had not followed the decision of 1845, and that appeal was heard before six judges who were divided three to three, with the result that the appeal failed. Two of the judges by whose action the appeal was dismissed said they felt great difficulty, but did not like to disturb the decision of the 1845 case after so many years. The third judge was Lord Bramwell, and anybody who remembered Lord Bramwell with his extraordinary intellect and absence of legal "tie" when he chose to put it on one side, would be amazed at the decision at which he arrived. Lord Bramwell used the argument he (Sir Charles Dilke) used to-day. Lord Bramwell explained how the Truck Act had I been killed, and, having explained that there was therefore no law of Truck, said that he had to construct one out of his own inner consciousness, and the judgment of Lord Bramwell was one of the most remarkable that had ever been delivered from the Bench. The judgment in 1845 held good in the teeth of the statute, because in the appeal case of 1859 three judges decided in the way that he and others held to-day, and two judges agreed, but thought it ought not to be carried to extremes, while Lord Bramwell used the language to which he had referred. So things stood until the Trades Unions came into their own in 1874. In 1874 there was a weak Liberal Government followed by a weak Conservative Government, and one of the results of the power of Labour in 1874 was the carrying through this House unanimously of a sweeping Truck Act in respect to one particular trade, the hosiery trade. That abolished the whole of what were commonly called deductions: it abolished all fines and

  1079
  deductions with one exception. It was an Act applicable to a single trade and was not universally acted upon in connection with that trade. It was not known. It was procured through the instrumentality of the late Mr. Mundella, and was supposed to be applicable to Nottingham. In 1887, in the time of the Conservative Government, an Act was passed, and in 1889, in spite of the Act of 1887, the Home Office, although armed with that Act, failed, in every case they undertook, in trying to upset the judgment which had been referred to. After their failures in 1889 they stopped taking cases and said that, pending legislation, they were unable to do anything. In 1895 a Truck Act was proposed by a Liberal Government and brought in and passed by a Conservative Government in 1896, and most of the Members of the House were ed by the legal advisers of the Home Office to support that Bill. Unfortunately, that Act had been a complete failure; its utter breakdown had been recognised. In 1897 the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Leicester brought in a Bill to repeal the Act of 1896, the first clause of which was—
  "The Truck Art of 1896 is hereby repealed."
  It was a very ingenious Bill, and he did not think he was far wrong in saying that two of the most illustrious lawyers in the present Cabinet drew that. Bill. That Bill, which was on a different principle to former Acts, did not succeed. The great case of 1889 was the case of Redgrave v. Kelly, in which case the Home Office had the advice of the Treasury lawyers and the whole of the legal talent of the Government at its back. It failed, and the Act of 1895–6 was prepared on the basis of the breakdown of that case, and they all had had good hopes of the result, I He would now state to the House, without any attempt at adornment, a few of the cases which had been taken in recent times under the Act of 1896—the recent Act, together with the Act of 1831. He would take cases from Belfast, Birmingham, Edinburgh and London, and only cases for the year 1903, cases which had been taken by the inspectors of the Government themselves, and in regard to which answers had been given in the Home Office Reports or in this House.
  1080
  In Belfast there were three cases of soiling handkerchiefs in hemstitching, a work carried on largely by young girls at a small wage. In the first, a girl was fined 5s., her wage being 1s. a day. In the second case 1s. 5¾d. was stopped for soiling four dozen; the girl's wages for the work being 3d., she working at the rate of 9d. for twelve dozen. The third case was that of a girl aged fourteen. She had 8¾d. stopped, her wages being 2s. 10d. per week. Those three cases were held to be "reasonable," and the cases taken by the inspector at Belfast were dismissed. The next case he would take was one at Birmingham in the steel-pen trade, a case of "waste." In that case a girl was fined £2 for wastage, her wages being 12s. a week. The Edinburgh was a hosiery case; the case of a disciplinary fine for unpunctuality. The girl was absent for an hour: she was absent once, and once only. She was ill, and it was not contended that she was not. She was fined 7½d., her wages being 7s. a week. Although the German law was supposed to be the worst truck law in existence a case of this kind could not happen in Germany, because there no person could be fined more than a certain percentage. The last case was the London case, a case at the Guildhall of pressing n the tailoring trade. There a woman was fined £2 5s., and the extent of the fine was so huge in proportion to her wages that it was spread over two years. The only other class of cases he would like to mention were cases of an entirely new description which had come up lately; they were quite different to the others and more important; but they did not press in the same way, as those mentioned previously, on feeble women's industries. The first of this series was me that arose in 1904 at Oxford, where it was held legal to make stoppages for printed books containing the particulars required by law. That applied to the tickets upon which the particulars were put which a beneficent Government insisted upon. The case in the Potteries in 1904 was even more curious: in lat it was held to be legal to make deductions for fees of certifying surgeons under the Acts. It was proved in court that the employer made a profit

  1081
  of £1 5s. the month, and inspectors had reported cases in which a profit of 100 percent, was made on stoppage for certifying surgeons' fees. The most striking case of all was a Stroud Valley case, in which there had been deductions for insurance under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In some cases twice and even thrice the amount of the insurance had been stopped. The Home Office took the case under the Act of 1831 and were defeated, and the decision was upheld on appeal.
  But in 1905 in an appeal case of an inspector, "Squire v. the Midland Lace Co." in the King's Bench Division, before the Lord Chief Justice and two other Judges, the appeal failed, but the Court expressed the unusual opinion that the Truck Law should be amended, and in answer to a Question in the House on the 4th May the right hon. Member for St. Augustine's Division of Kent said the Home Office admitted the necessity of amending and consolidating the Truck Acts, and that they must be amended by this House. In May, 1904, the Home Office admitted that there must be an amendment of the Truck Acts. If he and those who acted with him had chosen to put down the Motion which was put down last session, and the session before, simply stating that in the opinion of the House drastic and immediate improvement of the law of truck was necessary, that Motion, he thought the Government would admit, would have been carried without a division in the House. It would be impossible to resist such a Motion, but some of them who had had this matter before them for years had thought that it would be more courageous on their part to try to commit the House, not to a vague resolution, but to put before the House the policy which he was sure alone would succeed. He was aware that there were difficulties, but they had been driven to this view by the failure of every other measure. If they were driven to make some exceptions to the rule, then he thought those exceptions should be voted on and clearly explained. Some people thought that it was necessary to preserve fines for the purposes of discipline, but the evidence of the Home Office inspectors was conclusively
  1082
  on the other side. The most experienced inspectors took the view that the best governed factories were those in which there were no fines, and the Home Office had also taken that view. The Home Office Reports had said that all cases of serious misconduct or injury to employer's property could be dealt with by other Acts of Parliament, notably the Employers and Workmen Act. If in a fiery mining district a man smoked down below, he was not fined under the Truck Acts, but under other Acts of Parliament, having been brought before a police court for an offence against the Mines Act. As he had said, also, the Employers and Workmen Act covered the great majority of these cases. A Board of Trade return stated that a most frequent cause of strikes was the system of excessive fines, and in factories, he need hardly say, the fines inflicted for purposes of discipline were a frequent source of tyranny. In shops these fines were pushed to a most absurd extent, and he had seen a book of over seventy disciplinary fines which were in existence in one shop. He had heard of another case in which the disciplinary fines were over 100. These fines pressed most heavily not upon the great trades but upon the less organised trades, such as the sweated women trades. As to the question of the exemption of the mining industry, some thought that the effect of the abolition of fines would be to break the miners' agreements. That point was raised in 1897 against the Bill of his hon. friends the Member for Leicester and the Member for the Ilkeston Division, but it was quite wrong. The miner is paid by weight of mineral obtained, and the deductions were from the weight of mineral and not from the wages. He had there a legal opinion which was perfectly clear on that point. An appeal had been made by an hon. friend of his on behalf of the Northern Miners' Permanent Relief Fund, and no doubt a distinction could be drawn in favour of deductions which went towards public purposes or to public bodies; but he saw great danger in introducing special clauses of that kind. There was an amazing case, the name of which he could not mention, because the matter was hushed up, with a view of recovering the money. It was that of a poor

  1083
  girl. A large sum of money was deducted for many, many years for hospital treatment, and it was found that not a penny of the money had gone to the hospital. He mentioned that as showing the danger of making an exception in cases where the money went to a good cause. If, however, it was necessary to make an exception to their general principle, let the exception be explained and distinctly made known to the House at the time it was made. He begged to move.
  MR. SHACKLETONin seconding the Motion said he thought the House would thank the right hon. Baronet for his clear exposition of the law of truck. He seconded this Resolution, because he was asked by his association, of which he happened to be acting secretary, to do so. His society was the Weavers' Association, and they had come to the conclusion that they should not be liable to fines of any description. It might be asked whether the Association was not strong enough to deal with the matter itself, but they did not want to have a strike every time a man resented a deduction from his wages. It was because they wanted to avoid strikes in the future that he seconded the Resolution. The abolition of truck gave the impression that wages were to be received in full, and the average workman was not aware of the legal decisions which had taken away the rights he thought the Truck Act had given him. They wanted to get back to the idea their forefathers had when they passed the Truck Act, that the workman should be handed over in money exactly what he had earned. If the system of fines were abolished the workman would still be liable for any damage he had done, and it would not mean that for every misdemeanour or fault of the operative the man must be discharged. He would be willing to pay what he recognised as a reasonable claim. He asked the House not to believe that the fines were necessary for discipline in the mills. There were no fines in any of the mills of the operative spinners, and there was no lack of discipline. At the election the Cotton Operatives Association made this a question and saw the candidates, and a good percentage of
  1084
  the men returned were willing to support the operatives' demand. At that time he knew that some of the candidates and some of the manufacturers expressed the view that the abolition of fines would relax discipline and go against the progress of the cotton industry; he claimed, on the contrary, that the system of fines had hampered its progress. But the men and the employers were on an equal footing, and the men would not be unreasonable in carrying out the law. He was willing to consider the claim of the miners to exemption; but he hoped the law would be clear that as a general rule fines should not be deducted, and especially those which simply went into the pockets of the employer. He maintained that where it was necessary to organise subscriptions for charitable objects the public spirit of the operative was good enough to secure that. When the workmen got his wages from the overlooker subscriptions could be got without any pressure.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary to put an end to fines and deductions from wages."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  MR. BELLthought that they were indebted to the right hon. Baronet for raising this question. Speaking for the railway employes of this country, he would point out that, although they were not subject to the same kind of deductions as those which had been mentioned, they had been subjected to fines for trivial offences. Four or five years ago, the London and North Western Railway adopted a far more severe and oppressive mode of punishment. Where the men were formerly fined 1s., 2s., or 2s. 6d., they were nw suspended for one or two or even six days, and instead of having to pay 1s. or so the men lost 5s. or 6s. or 7s. a day. This system was far more oppressive upon the workmen than that adopted by other companies. On the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway during ten consecutive weeks from March 16 to May 18 last year at one station and in one Department alone—that of the Locomotive Department at Wigan—no less than ninety-five fines were imposed which amounted

  1085
  to £13 5s. 3d. There were also eighteen cases of suspension, amounting to ninety-eight days. Nearly all these were for trivial offences. The Midland Railway had also adopted this system. An engine-driver for smoking a pipe of tobacco upon his engine would formerly be fined 1s. or 2s., but recently the company had abolished this system of fine and adopted the system of suspension, so that the driver would nowadays lose 7s. or 8s. wages. The London and North Western, moreover, posted up a list giving the name of the individual, the offence he had committed, and the number of days for which he had been suspended. He found that in one week on the London and North Western Railway twenty-seven men were suspended sixty-three days, and seventeen of them were engine-drivers. The offences were most trivial, such as sticking with his goods train in the tunnel, extravagant use of stores when getting the engine ready, and the smoke nuisance. Upon another date he found that twenty-three men were suspended thirty-three days, and seventeen of them were drivers. Two men were suspended one day each because their engine happened to be blowing off steam in the station. It was almost impossible for an engine-driver who kept his engine up to the standard to avoid steam blowing off. Possibly some old timid lady might be alarmed on the platform by the steam blowing off, and if she complained the man would be suspended a day and thus fined from 7s. to 8s. according to his wages. In two other instances men were fined, or rather suspended for one day, for allowing the engines to omit smoke. Therefore it amounted to this—that a driver was suspended if he did not keep up steam, and in order to keep up steam to the standard he must consume a certain quantity of coal, and possibly in so doing the engine would emit a certain amount of smoke, and for this he was suspended. It was almost impossible for the men to know what was right and wrong, or what to do or not to do. Upon another date he found that thirty - nine men were suspended for fifty-nine days, and twenty-five of them were drivers, and ten of the offences were for allowing their engines to emit smoke. He thought
  1086
  hon. Members would agree with him that the emitting of smoke was not such a serious offence as to justify punishment to the extent of 6s., 7s., or 8s. it was not necessary to inflict heavy penalties of that kind in order to enforce discipline. The treatment of the men by this company was such that people would hardly credit it unless they were acquainted with the facts as he knew them. There was one case in which a driver was concerned in a collision over which he had no control and he was suspended. Inquiries were held by the company's officials, and it was shown that this driver was not at fault. After he had been suspended for six days he was not allowed to resume his duties until he had signed the following form—
  "I,—do, this—day of—agree to forego all claim, if any, from the London and North Western Railway Company or wages during the time I have been suspended from duty from—to—,on condition that I may be allowed to resume, work."
  He ventured to think that the House would agree with him that that was a form of tyranny and punishment which no great corporation of respectable employers would tolerate for one moment. With regard to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, he was both for and against it in a sense. If penalties had to be inflicted for disciplinary purposes and if the effect of abolishing fines would be to substitute suspensions, he would rather see the fines retained. He felt sure that with all these heavy punishments inflicted by the railway companies upon their employees they got no more discipline and no more care than if they adopted less severe methods which would encourage the work people to take more interest in their employment. He knew that when a man had been suspended for paltry offences like those which he had described, he felt so aggrieved that he did not euro whether he did his best for his employer or not. He hoped that the exposure which he had now given to the London and North Western Company's plan of enforcing discipline and the system of fines and suspensions adopted also by other great corporations would lead them to consider the adoption of some other method

  1087
  as an experiment which would induce the work people to take a greater interest in their work. He hoped the Home Secretary, when dealing with this subject, would consider whether something could not be done to prevent the harsh punishments to which he had referred, which were really an evasion of the Truck Act.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONthought it would be as well if sea-faring men were included in any Amendment of the law, because he knew that in several large shipping companies the seamen were fined without any trial whatever. It had recently been brought to his notice that on some large Atlantic liners the stewards at the end of the voyage were charged as much as 15s. for lost linen and cutlery. It did not matter whether the responsibility could be fixed upon any particular person or not, for the whole lot were fined to make sure. He thought that was a very hard case indeed. If the Truck Act was applied to sea-faring men they might be able to get some relief in this direction.
  MR. FENWICKsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that there certainly was a case for a very strong remedy being applied for the removal of fines and deductions. It was very difficult for a layman to distinguish what was truck and what was not. In his own county they had deductions for various things, and he was not quite clear in his own mind as to whether they would come under the Truck Act or not. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham and Cleveland they had had for over forty years what was known as the Miners' Permanent Relief Fund for widows and orphans, and it also provided superannuation allowances for aged and infirm miners. Deductions for this purpose were made at every colliery from the wages of the miners. Would such deductions be regarded as truck? If so he would very much regret that any action which this House might take should interfere with an arrangement like that, because before they adopted the plan of having these deductions made from
  1088
  the wages in the office of the colliery the contributions of the workmen were very often neglected through carelessness, and when accidents happened it was frequently found that the workman, had allowed his contributions to lapse, and when the widow expected relief it was often found that no compensation, was forthcoming. Now that these contributions were deducted in the colliery office no such cases occurred; it had added considerably to the stability of the fund, and therefore he should regret any action which would interfere with or put an end to an arrangement of that kind. There were other deductions which might be regarded in the nature of fines, but they were arranged between the representatives of the workmen on the one hand and representatives of the employers on the other, and every precaution was taken to see that they were reasonable in their character, and that they are properly carried out. In the counties of Northumberland and Durham nearly all these deductions had been arranged at the request of the workmen themselves. No arbitrary deductions had been forced upon them by the employers, and he should protest very strongly against any employer forcing fines or deductions from wages in accordance with his own sweet will. As the miners stood upon terms of perfect equality with their employers in this respect, they were probably in a peculiar position as compared with other industries and other districts. He was not objecting so much to the terms or the principle of the Motion of his right hon. friend, but he was very anxious to guard and protect the interests of his own county and constituency in regard to a system which had grown up as the result of the experience of the past and been very successful. The miners had recently adopted nursing societies and paid their own nurses to attend serious cases of accidents and sickness. In order that the contribution for such purposes might be regular and sufficient to maintain these nursing institutions, appeals had been made to the colliery proprietors to stop a certain amount from each workman's wages to be handed over to some recognised official representing the workmen, and this system had been adopted and proved

  1089
  very economical because the cost of collection was saved. Nearly all these cases were matters of mutual and voluntary arrangement, and he did not know how far the Motion of his right hon. friend would affect that arrangement. He agreed with the suggestion that they should select certain cases of deductions and legalise them and place them outside the operation of the Truck Act altogether. That was an arrangement which he should certainly favour himself. He hoped, however, that nothing would be done to upset an arrangement which in his county had worked so well in the past, and which gave every prospect of working well in the future.
  MR. SEDDONsaid he hoped that if any alteration was to be made in the Truck Acts the Home Secretary would consider the case of the shop assistants. He knew that to a certain extent they were included, but the majority of those engaged in the distributing trade knew nothing about it. Shop assistants had inflicted upon them a system of living-in which would not be tolerated by any other workers in the country. The system of living-in was a vicious one, and carried with it the necessity of sleeping often under conditions inimical to good health, and it was not at all in the interests of the people who were compelled to submit to it. He had before him a list of fines inflicted in some of the shops of this great city which proved that the ingenuity of the employers had been taxed to the utmost to select cunning fines which were cruel in their operation. There was a fine of one shilling for not turning out the gas in the bedroom at the proper time. For exceeding time at meals the fine was 2d. and exceeding time for washing hands there was also a fine of 2d. A customer was not to be allowed to leave the shop unserved unless the shop walker was acquainted, and for breaches of this rule there was a fine of 6d. He could go on for longtime enumerating fines which would not be tolerated amongst any other class of workers. Speaking for something like three-quarters of a million of people, he thought the time had come when the Home Secretary should make a very determined attempt to include the shop
  1090
  assistants of this country in any future legislation for the protection of the workers. The system of living-in was, in itself, a contravention of the spirit of the Truck Act. They were told that the original conception of the living-in system was a very healthy one; that it carried with it the idea of guardianship for boys and girls coming from the country, who would be exposed to the evils of large towns and cities. That might be true of the past, but only the vicious part of the system had been perpetuated. Today the system of living in had degenerated to such an extent that it had become part of the business concern, and its only merit now was that it was an adjunct to the profits arising out of the business. The assistants were compelled to sit at a common table, they were subject to be called away at any time from their meals. The same class of food was given them, week by week, all the year round, with no variation except the day upon which the food was given. Another evil was that the living-in system gave to employers the right to give to their assistants food which, if sold to the public, would subject the salesman to the rigour of the law. A short time ago a case of this kind was tried in Bradford. It was proved conclusively that a large employer of shop labour had placed before his assistants food which was unfit for human consumption. A prosecution took place at the instance of the Bradford Corporation, and the stipendiary magistrate ruled tint, while the food might not be fit for sale, it was fit for the assistants who were boarded by their employer. ["Shame."] Another evil was the insufficient accommodation provided for the assistants who had to live and sleep in. He hoped the Home Secretary would be able to give the same supervision to the living-in accommodation provided by large business establishments for the assistants as was extended to common lodging-houses. If the Home Office obtained such a power, he felt sure that a large number of the swell West End houses would soon find themselves brought into Court. This evil had become a public scandal and a grave danger to the health and well-being of the shop assistants, and it was a positive danger in case of

  1091
  fire. The system of fines and deductions was a blot upon our civilisation and it pressed very heavily upon the slender earnings of the workers. There fore, he beseeched the Home Secretary when making any alteration in this Act to include the workers in the whole of the distributing trades.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the Home Secretary would have risen before this and given them some information as to the views of the Home Office upon this subject. This was a subject which was really worth the serious attention of the House, and one which must be dealt with sooner or later by the Government of the day. The original object of the Truck Act was to secure that the full amount of the wages should be paid to the worker. According to one of the best judges who ever presided in the English courts, Lord Bowen. the clear intention of the Truck Acts was to ensure to a workman his entire wages in actual current coin of the realm, unfettered by any obligation that it should be spent in any particular manner or in any particular shop—
  "The Legislature," said he, "endeavoured to secure that the workman might have in his hand the actual amount representing his wages, in order that he and his family might freely carry it home without impediment in the open market."
  That would undoubtedly be the case if there were no qualifications. Not very long afterwards it was established that fines and deductions might be made other than those not specified in the Act. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland put a case which was almost, if not entirely, covered by the deductions now made legitimate by the Act of 1831, with the qualification that under Section 23 the workman must himself in his own hand sign the warrant of the employer to make good that deduction. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet that the proper method of dealing with this matter was first of all to say that there must be no fines or deductions, that the entire amount of the wages must be paid in current coin of the realm, and that no portion of the wages must be withheld. In the case of contributions to provident and medical funds, an exception might be made, but these exceptions
  1092
  should be specified in the Act of Parliament, and should be only permitted when the workman authorised them in his own handwriting. How was it fines and deductions were first allowed? It was said they were not deductions at all from the wages. It was said by judges that they were a contract entered into, and that, therefore, the calculation of the fine was a mere step in the ascertainment of the wages. He thought the time had come when this system should be put an end to. It was true that the workman was protected in many instances by powerful unions, but it was equally true that in many cases where trades were not so well organised the workmen were not well treated. In certain specified cases, when the workmen might probably be induced to contribute either to a provident or medical fund, it would be unfair not to allow him of his own free will to enter into an arrangement. But it was monstrous that the system of fines should continue, because the very foundation of a system of fines was this—and it was fundamentally wrong—that the employer himself should be the judge not merely of non-attendance, but in the case of damaged goods. That was constituting the employer the judge in his own quarrel. Immediately a judicial system of fines was allowed, there was no practical prevention of their being part of the contract. What was the use of telling a workman who went to a factory that he could look at the list of fines? What he wanted was work and wages, and immediately the list of fines was put before him, if they were within the four corners of the Act, the workman took the contract. The only proper system was that which had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet, that there must be no fines and no deductions, subject to qualification. It was not in the Motion, but he understood from the right hon. Baronet's speech that he was willing to include such a clause. The deductions allowed ought to be very limited. There was a great deal to be said on this subject, but the speaking had all been on one side of the House. The Home Office, whose views the House was entitled to have, ought at the earliest possible opportunity to bring in a Bill, and not merely an amending Bill. It

  1093
  was no use bringing in a Bill to amend the existing Acts. Such a course would be a great inconvenience to all concerned, and would simply give a lot of work to lawyers. It should be a Bill which any ordinary intelligent man might understand. Therefore he urged the Home Secretary to advise the Government when the time came—and he hoped it would be very soon—to introduce a Bill directly dealing with the subject, and the foundation of that Bill should be that the whole of the wages must be paid without fines or deductions, that if deductions were to be allowed they ought to be of the most limited character and should be specified in the Act. and then allowed if only authorised by the employees of the. particular trade.
  THE TINDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. HERIBERT SAMUEL,): This question belongs to a class of subjects in which, I believe, the new Parliament will take a special interest. Many Members have come to the House in the hope that they will be privileged to take some part in legislation to remedy industrial grievances precisely such as those mentioned tonight, and I do not think the Home Office will fall short of these expectations. Perhaps those new Members will see with some, disappointment, though not with surprise, the desolate condition of the Front Opposition Bench. The question of fines and deductions may seem to many of comparatively trivial importance, but it is these small, petty, but irritating grievances which frequently make all the difference between a state of comparative contentment and a state of constant bickerings and bitterness. It is often easier to bear a great hardship than a small injustice. Certain it is that these grievances cause a very real discontent, often disproportionate to their weight. My right hon. friend the Home Secretary is convinced that legislation on the subject is necessary, and legislation will certainly be introduced. The Act of 1896 aimed at securing that fines and deductions should be fair and reasonable, but the Act has failed in its purpose. Much, however, has been done. The inspectors have done their best with it, and figures show that in many respects
  1094
  large improvements have been made; I but the inspectors have been greatly hampered by the limitations of the Act, and an extraordinarily large number of prosecutions under it have failed. In 1904 no fewer than 40 per cent, resulted in failure. As to deductions for premiums for insurance against liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is clearly the intention of Parliament that the burden of insurance should rest on the employer. It has been mentioned that employers in various parts have deducted from their workmen sums of money for the purpose of paying the premiums of insurance, and cases have been quoted in which, though the premium was only 8s. the employer deducted 17s. per £100, and when the factory inspector prosecuted it was declared by the Court that such deduction was not illegal. The Factory Acts and the rules and regulations mule by the Home Office have placed burdens on the employer, but in many cases, especially in the Potteries, the burden of carrying out those regulations has been thrown on the workpeople in the form of compulsory deductions from their wages. Employers have engaged persons to sweep the workplaces and keep the sanitary appliances in order, and have recouped themselves for the expense by means of these deductions. Here again prosecutions have been undertaken by the factory inspectors, and the deductions have been declared not to be illegal. In the boot industry many factory owners near Bristol make charges in the form of deductions for standing-room, light, and tools. Cases have been taken to Court by the inspectors. In the case of one woman, whose working wages were 14s. 6d. a week, the deductions amounted to 2s. 1d. for thread, standing-room, and use of machine, besides a penny to the doctor, and when this case came into Court, the defence was urged that the employer made no profit on the thread, and that as regarded the shilling for standing room and use of machine, he urged that considering the prime cost of the machine, £5, and the running and depreciation, and the light, rent, and rates of the factory, the charge, was not excessive. Taking all these matters into consideration the Bench held that the employer was right, and the case was dismissed.

  1095
  In the Potteries there are many survivals of a bye-gone system. Because fathers and grandfathers used to bring their own lanterns and candles to light them at work, now that gas has taken the place of such primitive methods workmen are required to pay for it. Because the grandfathers of the present generation paid assistants to turn their lathes and bring their materials, now that the steam engine does the same work, in a great many of the factories in the Potteries the workpeople are compelled to pay for providing and running the engines. It is impossible to tell whether deductions under some of these heads are fair or not, because the inspector has no power to call for the production of the gas bill or the rent-book of the factory owner, and it is impossible to say to what extent the workpeople are imposed upon in these ways. The right hon. Baronet also mentioned the extreme hardships that occur in relation to charges made for damaged goods. Workpeople are often compelled, for some slight fault in a garment, to purchase from the employer the article at its full value. Occasionally they are able to dispose of it, and the loss might not be so great, but this is not always the case. During the South African war there were many cases of khaki suits made for the soldiers being defective in some slight measure, and the unfortunate out-workers were compelled to pay their value without being able to recoup themselves. The reports of the factory inspectors are full of instances of fines which ordinary magistrates would consider unreasonable and unfair. An old woman, who was paid 6s. a week for cleaning a factory, was charged 1s. 6d. out of that amount for the rent of a dirty dilapidated room belonging to her employer, and an extra shilling a week for being late in the morning, so that the sum she received, after the deductions, was 3s. 6d. a week. This case was prosecuted by a lady inspector, and the magistrates dismissed the claim on the ground that these deductions were not unreasonable, and the employer promptly dismissed the woman. These things ought to be impossible. They are not impossible at the present time, and therefore the House must legislate to make them
  1096
  impossible. I have not exhausted the number of instances in which general grievances arise. The Act says that fines must be for specific acts or omissions.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: That is done now. It will not do at all.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I venture to point out that it is not done now. I am not saying that the Act, as it stands, is sufficient to carry out the express purpose for which it is made. In a certain factory a notice was exhibited that workers must observe due order and decorum in the factory, and should in all respects obey the lawful demands of the manager, forewoman, or superintendent, and that they were to be subject to fines if in any degree they infringed any part of so sweeping and vague a regulation. The case was taken into Court, and it was urged that it was not a specific statement of acts and omissions for which,fines should be inflicted, but the Court of Appeal held to the contrary, and that case was sufficient to rob the Act of 1896 of its utility. Then, again, there are three large groups of workers wholly excluded from the benefits of the Act. There is the case of the shops, where there are frequently as many as 200 rules to be observed, and for the infringement of which an assistant may be fined. He would be indeed an immaculate being who could tread his way through without breaking a single rule. Shops under the Truck Act are a peculiar instance of the hiatus of the law. Inspectors under the Act may enforce the Truck Act, but may not enter shops. Shop inspectors may enter shops, but cannot enforce the Truck Act. There is, therefore, no proper source of inspection, and shop assistants cannot take action, for fear of dismissal without a character. The whole of the cotton industry is exempted at the request of those engaged, which is not perhaps altogether wise. Thirdly, the great class of out-workers is excluded from all the Truck Acts, although they are the most poverty-stricken of all, the least organised, and the most open to oppression, and the class which should especially receive the care and solicitude of the House. The Court of King's Bench in a recent

  1097
  decision, in almost unprecedented circumstances, made the suggestion to Parliament that it was high time that the Act should be amended if only to bring in this great body of out-workers. I do not believe that good employers will object to legislation to get rid of the abuses that prevail. Harsh treatment does not make a good workman, and the great majority of employers are far too considerate and far too sensible to permit injustices of the description I have quoted in their works. But the Truck Acts, like the Factory Acts, have no concern with the majority who do right; they are intended for the reproof and correction of the minority who do wrong. For these and similar reasons my right hon. friend has decided to bring in a Bill to amend the Truck Act, but not this year. The Government has the Workmen's Compensation Bill and the Trade Union Bill to deal with this Session. But my right hon. friend intends to introduce and hopes to pass a measure to amend the Truck Act in the next session of Parliament. The interval between now and then might be properly used for an inquiry into the whole subject and for collecting further information. I wish it were possible to accept the easy and simple solution which is proposed by the right hon. Baronet straight off and without further examination, but as the right hon. Baronet himself recognises, the matter is not so simple as it appears at first sight. With regard to the system of deductions, such as was mentioned by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland in the case of miners, the employers are used as a collecting agency, so to speak, for a number of institutions in which the miners are interested. If the Motion of the right hon. Baronet were carried the whole of this system, which largely prevails in the mining districts, would be swept away, to the great disadvantage, I believe, of both employers and employed. Then in the case of goods which are given to outworkers and damage is done, the House will need to be quite sure, before prohibiting any form of deduction, that they are not precipitating a system which may be still worse. Supposing it were found that employers, whose work was damaged, were unable to get any re-
  1098
  dress except by prosecution, a system might arise whereby employers would refuse to give out work unless the workers paid a deposit to cover any liability that might fall on the employer in consequence of damage to goods, and that might cause a great hardship to be inflicted on out-workers. We must be sure, too, that legislation would be able to be enforced and would prevent secret arrangements between employers and employed that damage when done should be paid for in the form of deductions from wages. For my part I hope the inquiry will prove the possibility of prohibiting all sorts of fines, but sweeping and hasty legislation in that direction might have undesirable consequences. We find in the factory inspectors' reports that large numbers of the better managed laundries have abolished fines altogether, and that the discipline of the workers has not at all been affected. We find that the manager of the London and North Western Railway, Sir F. Harrison, said before the Commission on Accidents on Railways that—
  "fines of small amount which generally used to be the custom are a very objectionable and very irritating kind of punishment."
  That railway company decided to abolish fines altogether.
  MR. BELL: In my remarks just now I pointed out that the general manager of the London and North Western Railway had adopted a more severe form of punishment by suspension, which was far more expensive to the workman.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: That you can see, is what may be the unforeseen result of sweeping legislation of this character. The hon. Member for Derby, who represents the railway servants, has pointed out that the result of the abolition of fines has been to impose far heavier punishments on the workmen, and far greater financial results. I gather from him that if he had his choice between the system of suspension on the one hand and fines on the other, he would rather have the fines with their irritation than suspensions with their heavy loss. Further, there is the

  1099
  question of offences committed by workpeople in the form of breaches of special rules made for their own safety and the safety of those who work with them. The Home Office is constantly instituting special rules to secure greater safety in dangerous trades. Occasionally workers transgress against these rules. They must be compelled in some way to conform to the proper requirements of the law. Are they to be prosecuted in every case, however trifling? Of course they must be prosecuted in grave cases, but trifling cases might possibly be met more expeditiously and more satisfactorily by fine than by prosecution. The matter has also to be considered whether by abolishing fines you will not be making employment far less secure—whether it will not become more usual for employers to dismiss workpeople for small and trivial offences. I believe that in great shops where fines are not in vogue the position of the workmen is far more precarious. I do not wish to prejudge the inquiry. For my own part I again express the hop e that it may be possible simpliciter to abolish all fines, but I do suggest that this House would be ill-advised to decide to-night without inquiry that all fines and all deductions should necessarily be abolished in every case. In these circumstances it is impossible to accept the Resolution of the right hon. Baronet in the form in which it now stands. It is too wide in one direction, and in another direction it is too narrow. The hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire observed that no amendment of the Truck Act could be in any degree satisfactory which did not take into consideration the system of "living-in" in shops. Here again you have the survival of an old system. In industrial establishments employing scores and hundreds of assistants you have the old system which existed when the shopkeeper employed just one or two assistants wild lived in his home as members of the family and dined at his board. This system may, and I believe docs, give rise to very grave abuses. The assistant must live in the employer's boarding house. The food may be bad and the accommodation inferior. There may be no privacy and many irritating restrictions, but he cannot change his lodgings without losing his situation. On
  1100
  the other hand, the system has its advantages. There are many of these places in which I believe the accommodation is excellent, and in which the employer makes, and seeks to make, no profit, and where the assistants are quite content. Then there are numbers of young women who come to London and who are engaged as shop assistants who would rather find lodgings with a respectable firm than be compelled to go perhaps to somewhat doubtful lodgings. There is also the special case of the seaside towns and watering places. They in the summer have a largely increased staff of shop assistants, and it is the custom to take these extra assistants to lodge in the shopkeeper's house because in many cases lodgings are specially difficult to obtain and are specially dear. It would cause extreme inconvenience if, by a simple enactment, you were to sweep away this system wherever it prevails. Further, it is necessary, as the hon. Member has pointed out, that any amendment of the Truck Acts should endeavour to consolidate and simplify the Acts which now stand on the Statute-book. I hope that may be possible. I cannot give any pledge on the subject of sweeping away all the Acts as they now exist and re-enacting truck legislation de novo. But the failure to comply with the Acts is often due to the failure to comprehend them. They are a maze of narrow and tortuous legal paths in which few find their way, and it may be necessary to cut a clean straight road through this tangle of legislation. There has been no inquiry into the working of the Truck Acts for the last thirty-five years, and my right hon. friend proposes forthwith to appoint a Committee to investigate these various questions. It will involve no delay, because in any case I hope that the inquiry may be completed before the next session of Parliament begins. Such an inquiry should not be made by a merely departmental and official Committee, and my right hon. friend was inclined to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. But there are three reasons why such a course might not be satisfactory. This is a matter in which the assistance of women is required in regard to the question of deductions from wages,

  1101
  out workers, and all those things specially calling for such assistance. A Select Committee would be deprived of such assistance, because we are not yet privileged to number ladies among our members. Secondly, it is desirable that the inquiry should be concluded within this year for the reason I have given I doubt whether it can be conclude within this session. Thirdly, it is ad visable that the Committee should have at its disposal the great store of information on this subject which the Home Office has collected. Therefore, as a present advised, my right hon. friend will propose the appointment of a Depart mental Committee in name, but not in composition, with its chairman and the majority drawn from outside the department concerned, and including women among its members. I trust that under these circumstances my right hon. friend the mover of the Resolution and the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division will not think it necessary to press this Resolution in its present form, assured, as they may be, that the Government is as desirous as they are of securing at the earliest possible date a comprehensive, well considered, and effective amendment of the Truck Acts. I believe that this House has given to the nation no greater boon than that beneficent, code, so gradually and laboriously created, of industrial law which is to be found in the Factory Acts, the Mines Acts, the laws affecting the working of railways, compensation for accidents, and the Truck Acts, and the House may be confident that those who are now responsible for the Home Office will not be found lacking either in the will or the ambition to carry to its proper development so much of this social reform as is entrusted to their charge.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid he should be sorry if this interesting debate were brought to a close without a few words being said from the Opposition side of the House. Those words would be entirely sympathetic with the position taken up by the Undersecretary. There was every reason why he and his friends should be sympathetic in this matter, for a great mass of that large body of legislation which had been passed for the improvement of the condi-
  1102
  tion of the working classes had been given to the country by the Conservative Party. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh."] Only those laughed who did not know the history of these matters. The Factory Acts were in a great measure owing to the Conservative party. [An HON. MEMBER: Ashley.] Lord Ashley was a staunch Conservative. While he did not wish in any degree to draw a distinction between parties in the matter discussed to-night, he could not help congratulating himself and those who thought with him that the Acts of 1887 and 1896 were both owing to a Conservative administration. Bat it was said that they had been a failure. At all events they had been the best efforts made in that direction, and if they had not been completely successful, they had failed, not through the weakness of the legislation, but by the difficulties which from time to time had arisen in giving effect to these Acts. What did more towards abolishing the abominations of the truck system in this country than any dozen Acts was Mr. Disraeli's novel "Sibyl," which brought home to the people the horrors of the system. He was glad indeed it had been decided that a Bill should be introduced. A Committee was to be appointed—he present Government was already fruitful in Committees—and he did not in the least object to the careful discussion and consideration of important matters like this, but he confessed he thought that on this matter the facts were pretty well ascertained. If it was really intended to appoint a Committee, he loped it would be done promptly, so that the Committee might report and a Bill be introduced dealing with the matter before the end of the present session. If the Committee sat during the present year, and if the Bill came fresh to the House next session, it would not get the consideration which it would other-wise receive. He thought a great deal would be gained if the. Bill could be laid before the House before the close of this session. It could be examined between then and the beginning of next session. He ventured to commend that course to the consideration of the Government. His hon. friend opposite might be quite sure that he would have no lack of support in this House in endeavouring

  1103
  to deal with the difficulties which did exist. That there were difficulties no one who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Derby could doubt. If this Resolution were to be proposed to the House in the form in which the hon. Member desired, it would not only forbid fines and deductions from wages, but suspension from duty as a punishment for small offences. If it did so, it would have the very serious defect which was pointed out by the Under-Secretary, who spoke on behalf of the Government, that employers unable to inflict small penalties for small offences might be obliged in self-defence to dismiss a man when the offence he had committed was one which might have been met by a small fine or by a slight suspension. That was a practical difficulty which he had no doubt would be carefully considered by the committee to be appointed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE,): The hon and learned Gentleman opposite seems to think that there is no necessity for the Committee which we propose to appoint, but I would really suggest to him that there is one subject alone which has been referred to to-night in the interesting and instructive speech of the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire—the subject of "living in"—require inquiry before being dealt with. I do not propose to indicate any opinion at present in regard to the system of living in, or what changes might be proposed to accommodate those who now live in these places. I rise now for the purpose of making a suggestion, because there has been practical unanimity on the part of all who have spoken to-night. My hon. friend the Under Secretary, in his very able and interesting speech, has really indicated the spirit in which the Government will approach this question, and it is desirable that we should agree on the Motion before the House. I, therefore, propose practically to accept in principle the Motion of my right hon. friend, but to add at the end—
  "Other than such as may be specifically legalised by Parliament."
  I hope that that will meet with general support.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words 'other than such as may be specially legalised by Parliament.'"—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was not sure that the words suggested by the Home Secretary would do much to get over the difficulties in this matter. In the Mines Regulation Act there were certain subjects specified and rules laid down for ascertaining what the deductions ought to be. Everything was provided that the ingenuity of man could suggest to ensure that fines for dirty coal should be fair and legitimate. It was also provided that deductions should not be made until mutually agreed upon between employer and employed. There was also an inspector fully empowered to enforce the provisions of the Mines Act, but in face of all that he could give instances where the Act had been practically a dead letter. He instanced a case in which the miners refused to accept a scale of deductions which they considered exorbitant, with the result that they were locked out for six weeks. They resumed work under the scale proposed by the employer, and a case was taken into Court to test the legality of the scale. The Court held that the fact that the men went back to work knowing the scale to be in existence, was proof that they had accepted it. No matter how much they might safeguard fines and deductions, there would be difficulty. It seemed to him that there was one safe guiding rule in this matter, namely, that no fines or deductions should be allowed which in any way benefited the employer. Deductions for hospitals, infirmaries, doctors, pick sharpening, and other things, could be made without difficulty if handed to a committee of workmen to be applied to the purposes for which they were made. He suggested that the difficulty might be got over if there was no possibility of bad and greedy employers getting advantage from fines imposed under provisions made to safeguard the interests of the workmen. If that idea could be embodied in the Resolution now before the House, and introduced into the Bill, it might lead to a solution of this very difficult question.
  MR. J. JOHNSONsaid the workmen's representatives were all deeply grateful to the right hon. Baronet for bringing this question before the House. He had done this at considerable labour to-himself, and he had certainly conferred a signal benefit on the Labour Members of the House. The right hon. Baronet had instanced some glaring cases of hardship from the infliction of fines and the making of deductions. When he came to the House he had considerable doubt as to the advisability of carrying the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman in toto, but after the speeches to which he had listened, his trepidation on the matter had disappeared. He thought a Member should not be always anxious to get what he conceived to be the precise form of the particular legislation he desired, and that he should waive, to a certain extent, special interests in order to fall in with the general concensus of opinion. In view of the hardship which the system of deductions inflicted on the weakest members of the community, on women and girls, it was incumbent on the Government to take the earliest opportunity of introducing legislation on the subject. The Under-Secretary in his very able statement had given evidence of his sympathy. He was thankful id so to the hon. and learned Member on the Front Opposition Bench for his sympathy, although he might add that it came very late in the day. All the facts, regarding the hardships suffered by the workpeople of which they had heard that evening must have been under the cognisance of the late Government for the last ten years. He did not want to say anything derogatory of the magistracy, except that they showed so little fellow-feeling when cases between workmen and employers came before the Bench. It required an overwhelming case before the workmen got the benefit of any doubt. He only wished that they, as workmen, should make an earnest endeavour to get some
  1106
  of their own kith and kin on the magisterial Bench, in order that they might have a little more humane interpretation of the law, not in favour of the workman, but in favour of justice and right. The glaring instances which had been given that evening by the right hon. Baronet and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department were such that there ought to have been some disposition on the part of the Government to restrain the magistrates from giving such verdicts and sentences. He hoped that the workmen in this House would, in season and out of season, press this Government, or any Government, to introduce legislation that would restrain capricious employers of labour from inflicting fines which were not only a deterrent of the employés, but cut into the very means of their existence. He, and all his fellow trade unionists, were highly, gratified at the tone which the debate had taken, and or the words of sympathy which they lad not been in the habit of listening to or many years; and he trusted that these would be followed by legislation which would improve the conditions of life of the working people of the country.
  Mr. CRKMEEsaid the hon. Member for the City if London who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench had claimed that preceding Truck Acts and all other measures for the benefit of the working lasses of the country had been passed by he Conservative Party. That was a mistake. The Amending Truck Act of 887 was the work of Mr. Bradlaugh, and Mr. Bradlaugh was certainly not a Member of the Conservative Party. There were Members of the present House who took part in the debates on that measure and who made serious efforts to amend the Bill on the lines of the Resolution now under discussion. He himself had moved several Amendments to the Bill with that object in view, but the Conservative Government of the day resisted

  1107
  them, and unfortunately the failed so that when the Bill became law it was so limited in its operation, as to be practically useless.
  MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid there was another matter which he wished to bring to the recollection of the hon. and learned Member for the City of London, whom he might congratulate on having now a colleague in this House, when he stated that all the beneficial working class legislation had been passed by the Conservative Party.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I did not say all.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: Nearly all.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I said the greater part.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: Well, the greater part. To his mind that was only one of the fictions which it was thought worth while by some people to circulate from time to time from the platform, and he rather thought it need not have been introduced into this debate. He wished to make one or two observations on the subject of the Resolution before the House, which he had studied for many years. The hon. Member for the Newton Division for Lancashire2 who had made a very interesting speech, fell into a slight error when he said that the Truck Act did not apply to shops, that the factory inspectors were not allowed to enter the shops, and that they could not put the Act into force. He wished to point out that under the existing law the inspectors under the Shop Hours Act only were at liberty to enter shops, but the Act was almost a dead letter because there were so few of these inspectors. The only method of enforcing the Act was to see that the terms of notice or contract and the list of fines were put up in the shops. If an inspector proceeded against an employer for neglect to put up particular notices or
  1108
  the terms of the contract signed by the workpeople, the employer, through the solicitor defending him, almost invariably pleaded guilty, but said that it was merely a technical offence, and a merely nominal fine was imposed. That was the only means of getting at an employer at all, although it might be the case that a workman had been fined a hundred times in sixpences to recoup half a crown. He put this point before the Government so that there might be in their minds the danger which resided in the words of the Amendment to the Motion of his right hon. friend. Those words would not save the situation, and he thought they would have gone the whole hog and abolish fines altogether. From the first part of the able speech of the Under-Secretary he imagined that he could come to no other conclusion than that the hon. Gentleman was going to abolish fines altogether; but then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not an easy question to decide whether it was harder to bear fines or to have dismissal or suspension. Enough, however, had been said to show that this subject was eminently one fitted for the consideration of a Committee, and he was glad to hear that such a Committee was to be appointed.
  MR. R. DUNCANsaid that as an employer of labour he could heartily endorse much that had been said during the debate, but it must be remembered that if there were bad employers as well as good, there were also bad trade unionists as well as good trade unionists. He knew that many employers desired to raise the standard of living amongst their workpeople, and to see them industrially organised. He himself wished that what were called casual labourers were better organised. He had no objection to arrangements as to fines being made jointly by employers and employed, and that if fines were retained, that they should be devoted to

  1109
  the charitable institutions of the district. The latter was a principle which if more generally acted upon would meet the case, and was already practised in the Clyde district.
  Amendment proposed—
  "That the words 'other than such as may be specifically legalised by Parliament,' be added to the Motion."—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that these words were very much on the line of the suggestions he had thrown out at the end of his speech, and he could therefore offer no objection to them.
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary to put an end to fines and deductions from wages other than such as may be specially legalised by Parliament.

  VOTING DISQUALIFICATION (POOR LAW) REMOVAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SCHWANNmoved the Second Reading of the Voting Disqualification (Poor Law) Removal Bill. Everyone, he said, knew that the working classes attributed great value to the possession of a vote as had been shown at the late Parliamentary election; but if a man accepted poor law relief he lost his vote. The Bill before the House did not recommend any extreme measures. It seemed to him simply just and natural that the man who, being in distress through loss of health, or old age, got relief should not lose thereby his vote. The Bill was presented to the last Parliament and received support from all parts of the House. He
  1110
  hoped that it would not now receive any opposition from either side, and therefore he moved that it be read a second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: May I ask if this is a Government measure?
  MR. SCHWANN: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he wished to ask whether the Bill applied to those over a certain age who received poor law relief or whether it applied to all cases. A Poor Law Commission was sitting at present on this question, and it appeared to him that it would hardly be fair to that Commission if this Bill were passed without full explanation. He himself had been quite unable to hear what the hon. Gentleman had said in explanation of the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that they had not heard from the hon. Member who brought this Bill forward any description of the different kinds of people who came on the poor law for relief. Undoubtedly from time to time a number of deserving people were obliged by necessity to seek relief from the poor law—men who had broken down through disease or who had been overtaken by old age. He could understand in cases of that kind that it would be unfair and unjust that these men should be deprived of their rights as citizens. But on the other hand, there were tramps, vagrants of all kinds, and objectionable characters who sought poor law relief, and fortunately the law at present deprived them of their right to the exercise of the franchise. He could understand that there would be an unanimous feeling in all parts of the House to grant a Second

  1111
  Reading to the Bill if it made a discrimination between these two classes who obtained poor law relief; but if there was no discrimination, and having regard to the fact that a Commission on the question was sitting, he thought it was inopportune to bring forward this Bill in such an incomplete and unsatisfactory condition. This was a subject which ought not to be dealt with by a private Member or in a piecemeal manner, and he trusted that the Bill would not be persevered with that night.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid it was a matter for extreme regret that the time was so limited in which they could discuss a measure, the substantial object of which the majority of the Members in the House were in favour of. It being now only a few minutes to twelve o'clock, it was impossible to give the Bill the consideration I which it deserved. There was much to be said for the argument of the hon. Member opposite who contended that such a measure should not be a private Member's Bill, but that it should be brought forward by the Government. It would have been better if they had had an opportunity of knowing to what classes of people this Bill would apply. For instance, in the memorandum attached to the Bill it was said that the Bill was intended to apply to workmen employed on relief works; but that class of person did not now labour under any disqualification. Under the Unemployed Workman's Act of last session a workman was entitled to exercise his vote in a proper and legitimate way. Again, a man in receipt of medical relief from the board of guardians did not in consequence thereof lose his vote either for a Parliamentary or municipal election.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  By virtue of an Act passed in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, intituled, "An Act to repeal So much of two Acts made in the tenth and fifteenth years of the reign of His present Majesty, as authorises the Speaker of he House of Commons to issue His Warrant out the Clerk of the Crown or making out Writs for the Election of Members to serve in Parliament, in the manner therein mentioned, and for substituting other provisions for the like purpose."
  I do hereby nominate, appoint, and mthorise—The right hon. George Finch, the right hon. Thomas Burt, the right hon. Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir James Kitson, and Sir John Brunner, being Members of the House of Commons, or any one or more of them, to execute all and singular the powers given to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being, for issuing Warrants to the Clerk of the Crown, in the cases as in the said Act specified.
  Given under my hand and seal, this twenty-seventh day of February, in year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six.
  JAMES W. LOWTHER,
  (L. S.) Speaker.
  27 February 1906.
  In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1, "Sittings of the House."
  I hereby nominate—The right hon. Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Edward Blake, Sir William Holland, Mr. Charles Fenwick, and Mr. Alfred Hutton, to act during this session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  JAMES W. LOWTHER,
  Speaker.
  27 February 1906.