Commons Sitting of 6 March 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz:—
  Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.
  London Southern Tramways Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Uxbridge Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill (by Order); Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Midland Railway Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
  North Metropolitan Tramways Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—
  1. "That, in the case of the London Outer Circle Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'London and India Docks Company,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  2. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the. Petition of the 'Marquess of Salisbury,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  3. "That, in the case of the Romford and District Tramways, Petition for Bill,
  266
  the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  4. "That, in the case of the London United Tramways, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct the Tramways proposed to be authorised be struck out of the Bill. That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
  5. "That, in the case of the Heacham Water, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF CLOSING).
  Petition from Hunslet, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
  Petition from Poplar, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Edinburgh Corporation, the Highland and Great North of Scotland Railways Amalgamation, and the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Orders ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 78.]

  NATIONAL GALLERY, ETC., (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Twelfth Annual Report to the Secretary for Scotland by

  267
  the Commissioners and Trustees of the Board of Manufactures in Scotland, being for the year ending 30th September 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 28th February 1906, directing that the "Compensation Fund (Licensing Act, 1904) Account" shall be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BULGARIA (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF) (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Bulgaria, as modified by Commercial Conventions with the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL EXPORTED.
  Return ordered, "giving, for the year 1905, the export of coal from each port in the United Kingdom to each country abroad, together with summary statements showing the export of coal in every period of three months from the principal districts of the United Kingdom to the principal groups of foreign countries; and also showing the quantity of coal shipped in each port in the United Kingdom for ships' use on foreign voyages during like periods (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 112, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
  Copy ordered, "of the Report and Supplementary Report made by the Committee appointed in August, 1905, to inquire and report upon certain questions connected with a proposed Redistribution of Seats at Parliamentary Elections."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas)
  PARLIAMENT (MEETING, ETC.).
  Return ordered, "showing dates of meeting and prorogation of Parliament in each session from the year 1808, and the duration of the Sittings of the House."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)

  COLONIES (COLONIAL ACTS, ROYAL ASSENT).
  Address for "Return of the names of Bills, since the date covered by the House of Commons Return, No. 362, of
  268
  1901, passed by both Houses of the Legislature in Colonies possessing responsible government, to which His Majesty has not given His Assent, and of Bills so passed with a Suspending Clause, under which the Act does not come into operation until proclaimed, in respect of which no such proclamation has been made."—(Colonel Legge.)

  FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  Return ordered, "of monthly accounts; relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Freeboard of British Ships.
  MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has agreed to and sanctioned any alteration in the freeboard assigned to British ships; whether the representatives of the seamen were consulted upon the subject as well as the shipowners; and whether he will state if it is his intention before such alteration shall come into operation to lay the particulars of the same upon the Table of the House so as to afford Members an opportunity to consider and discuss the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board have agreed to and sanctioned modifications of the freeboard tables, and, before doing so, consulted the corporations or associations for the survey or registry of shipping appointed for the purpose of approving and certifying the position of load lines as required by Section 438 (4) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. No other associations have been consulted nor any representatives of shipowners. I shall be happy to supply my hon. friend with a copy as soon as the tables are printed.

  Value of Imports from British Possessions—Home Competition.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total value of manufactured articles imported into

  269
  this country from British Possessions during the years 1903, 1904, and 1905; how far these were similar to and in competition with articles produced in the United Kingdom; and whether this competition shows signs of increasing.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The values of the articles classed in the trade accounts as wholly or mainly manufactured, imported into the United Kingdom from British Possessions in 1903, 1904, and 1905 were £14,119,830, £14,577,602, and £15,940,765, respectively. Over three-quarters of these imports consisted of unwrought tin and copper, drugs and dry stuffs, undressed leather, and jute manufactures. The last two categories may be said to compete with the United Kingdom manufactures. Of these the imports of leather from British Possessions showed an increase, and of those of jute manufactures a decrease, in 1905.

  Prices of and Import Duty on Sugar.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the average retail price, at intervals, of sugar in any convenient unit (1 lb. or 7 lb.) in London, Paris, or Berlin respectively from January 1903 to January 1906, and the amount of import duty in each country at the time.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) If the hon. Member will move for a Return showing, with regard to London, Paris, and Berlin, the price of sugar and the duty levied thereon at 1st March, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906, on the lines of the Return No. 174 of 1905, I shall be happy to grant it.

  Importation of Colonial and Foreign Store Cattle—Replies to Deputations.
  MR. WALROND: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will issue, as a Parliamentary Paper, the reports of the official replies to deputations on the subject of importing Colonial or foreign store-cattle into this country.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) It would be unusual to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member, but I
  270
  think I could arrange to supply a few copies of the reports in question either to himself or to any other hon. Members specially interested in the subject.

  Abolition of Corporal Punishment in Military Schools.
  MR. TOMKINSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the policy of the Government as regards corporal punishment in military prisons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Army Council has decided that corporal punishment should be entirely abolished in military prisons, and the necessary Amendments to this effect of the Army Act will be included in the Army Annual Bill.

  Transfer of Cost of Defences of Naval Dockyards to Navy Estimates.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the Statement of Admiralty Policy, issued on 30th November, in which a protest is made against the Navy Estimates bearing any charges incurred on behalf of other departments; and whether he will take advantage of this policy to negotiate for the transfer of the cost of the shore defences of naval dockyards from the Army to the Navy Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of the transfer of the responsibility for such defences to the Admiralty has been considered on previous occasions, and it has been always decided to leave matters unchanged, except in respect of the submarine mining defences. I do not propose, at the present moment, to re-open the general question. To transfer the cost of the defences without the responsibility would not apparently serve any good purpose.

  Treatment of Barbados and Trinidad under the French Tariff.
  MR. O. C. PHILLIPPS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Barbados and Trinidad do not at present receive the

  271
  same favourable terms under the French tariff as Jamaica; and whether he will take whatever steps may be necessary to secure for Barbados and Trinidad the same favourable treatment as Jamaica.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The products of Jamaica are admitted into French territory at the minimum rate of duty under the terms of a convention signed on the 8th of August, 1902, and ratified on the 12th of August, 1903. The Governments of Barbados and Trinidad were consulted in 1900 as to the expediency of steps being taken to secure similar favourable treatment for their products, and intimated that they did not desire such action to be taken.

  Pay and Pensions of Staff of Colonial Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state who pays for the up-keep of the Colonial Audit Branch under the Controller and Auditor-General; how many of the officials in this branch are in receipt of pensions from Parliamentary funds, and whether these officials are in addition receiving full pay in their present positions.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As the three Questions of which the hon. Member has given notice for 6th, 7tht and 14th March include matters which will be more conveniently answered together, I would ask him to allow me to reply to them at the same time. The Colonial Audit Branch does not stand on the same footing as ordinary departments of the Home Civil Service. All appointments to that branch, the bulk of the members of which serve abroad in various Colonies and Protectorates, are made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, just as many similar Colonial appointments are made with the approval of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The
  †To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Colonial Audit Branch, under the Controller and Auditor-General, is paid for out of Parliamentary funds; and, if not, how much is the amount of appropriations in aid received by the Exchequer and Audit Department for the housing, etc., of this Colonial Audit Branch; and why this amount is not clearly stated in the Estimates.
  272
  higher officers at present in the branch at headquarters in London were selected from the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department. Candidates for appointment must satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor-General that they possess the requisite knowledge and ability for the due discharge of their duties and that they are within the limits of age which are fixed at from eighteen to twenty-six. Their physical fitness for service in the Colonies, including the West Coast of Africa, is ascertained by one of the medical advisers of the Colonial Office. Some of the clerks were originally in the Second Division of the Civil Service, but the majority of the candidates recently appointed have been selected from graduates of the universities. In some cases appointments have been made from officials already in the Colonial service. The total number of the branch, including native clerks and messengers abroad, is at the present time 104. The entire charge, both effective and non-effective, of the branch is borne by the various Colonies and Protectorates, whose accounts are audited by that branch. No appropriations-in-aid are received by the Exchequer and Audit Department for the housing, etc., of the branch, who are accommodated in the same building with the main office of the Exchequer and Audit Department. The superintendent of the branch and one of the clerks, in addition to their pay from Colonial funds, are in receipt of pensions from Imperial funds as late clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department. These officials, on the reorganisation of that department, were at the special request of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, allowed by the Treasury to retire on pension in order that they might take up appointments in the Colonial Audit Branch, thus giving the Colonies the benefit of their experience. They are in receipt of personal salaries from Colonial funds, fixed with regard to the fact of their being in receipt of Imperial pensions. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is alive to the fact that there are certain anomalies in the constitution of the department, and has under consideration a scheme with the object of removing them.

  Stamp Duty on Affidavits and Memorials in Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that 10s. 6d. stamp duty is charged on affidavits or memorials in Ireland if sworn before a magistrate, and if the same be sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths the stamp duty is 13s. 6d. with Commissioner's fee in addition; and whether, in view of the confusion and inconvenience this difference of practice entails, the matter will have immediate attention.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The stamp charges on the registration of memorials are made up of several items, of which the only one that varies by reason of the authority before whom an affidavit or declaration is sworn, is the duty of 2s, 6d., chargeable under the head of "Affidavit and Statutory Declaration" in the schedule to The Stamp Act, 1891. By No. 2 of the exemptions under that head, this duty of 2s. 6d. is not chargeable on an affidavit or declaration "required by law, and made before a justice of the peace." It is not very clear why the exemption was thus limited, and in any revision of the Stamp Acts the point might well be considered.

  Value of British Exports to South Africa.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state the value of the British exports to South Africa from the time of the introduction of Chinese labour to 28th February, 1906, and particularly what was the value of the mining machinery exported from Sheffield and other centres of British staple trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The value of exports of British produce to British South Africa from the middle of the year 1904 to the end of 1905 was £24,951,326. The exports of mining machinery during the same period amounted to £404,041. The figures for the two first months of the present year are not at present available.

  Value of Firearms and Ammunition Exported into the United Kingdom.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
  274
  Department if he will state the number of firearms and amount of ammunition delivered in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland for the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904 and 1905, distinguishing the class of firearms and ammunition; and also the respective quantities, supplied under Government supervision, and otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I fear I cannot give this information. Figures exist showing the total quantity and value of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores, imported into the United Kingdom in each of the six years in question, but those figures do not distinguish the quantities imported into England, Scotland, Wales and Irelandr espectively. No information exists, so far as I am aware, showing the total quantities of firearms and ammunition manufactured in the United Kingdom, though the quantities manufactured in Government factories could probably be given, if the hon. Member so desires.

  Licensing Statistics
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now, state or include in his forthcoming volume of licensing statistics a statement showing the number of new on-licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, distinguishing ale-house licences, beer on-licences, and beer and wine on-licences, respectively, granted and confirmed in the years ending 5th April, 1903, 1904, 1905 and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of new on-licences granted in 1905 will be shown in detail in the volume in question. This volume is intended to deal with the figures for 1905, and I do not think that it would be advisable at this stage to delay and complicate it by introducing figures which have not been collected for this purpose.

  House to House Hawking of Beer.
  MR. T. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the practice of hawking beer from door to door, which of late has prevailed in many of the working-class

  275
  districts of London; and whether he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to take steps to prohibit the practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am informed by the police that a practice has grown up, and widely prevails in working-class districts and elsewhere, by which retail orders for beer in jars and bottles are placed with brewers and publicans beforehand and complied with by house-to-house delivery on appointed days. The question of the legality of such transactions sometimes involves points of considerable intricacy, and has come before the High Court more than once; but the Board of Inland Revenue and the police take proceedings whenever it seems desirable, and have done so successfully from time to time. It is a matter which I will take into consideration in connection with licensing legislation when opportunity occurs.

  Post Office Wages Committee—Position of Overseers.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Postmaster-General, in connection with the proposed Committee on Post Office servants, whether the class of overseers in provincial offices is to be regarded as belonging to the supervising and clerical force whose wages and position it is not intended should be inquired into by the Committee.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The duties of overseers in provincial offices are, to a great extent, of a supervisory character, and it was not my intention to include them among the classes covered by the reference to the Committee.

  Collecting of Rates in St. Georges in the East.
  MR. W. BENN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of certain tenants of houses in Lowder Street, St. George's East, who have been imprisoned for rates due to the Stepney Borough Council, part of which rates had already been paid to the landlord with his rent; and whether he will consider the advisability of
  276
  giving the borough council power to proceed against the landlord instead of the occupier in cases where the former is receiving a rent which includes the rates due upon the houses.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) If the borough council made an order for the rating of the owners of small hereditaments in which dwelling houses are included, instead of the occupiers, the rate could be recovered from the owner. But the borough council are not disposed to adopt this course, as they think that it would not prove financially economical. I understand that in the case referred to in the Question the owner of the houses was not liable to the payment of the rate, that the rate could only be recovered from the occupiers, and that they were entitled to deduct the rate from the rent due or accruing to the owner, but that they failed to do so.

  Tuberculosis and Cattle Disease.
  MR. CAIRNS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of cases of scheduled diseases of cattle reported in the United Kingdom for each year from 1896 to the present year inclusive, stating the specific diseases separately, also the number of cases of tuberculosis; similarly, the cases of the same diseases reported in cattle imported from the Dominion of Canada during the same years, and the number of cattle imported; and whether he can furnish the Returns of the Dominion Government as to the same diseases in the herds of Canada.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I am making inquiries as to the extent to which we can give effect to the wishes of my hon. friend, and I will communicate personally with him on the subject.

  Fines Levied on Renewal of Leases in the Metropolis.
  MR. BILLSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he can give the amount of fines on renewal of leases assessed to Income Tax in the Metropolis during the years

  277
  1900–1905 respectively, under The Income Tax Act, 1842 (Schedule A, No. II., 5); and if he can say what portion, if any, of such fines have been discharged say the Commissioners from the profits liable to assessment, on the ground that they have been applied as productive capital.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) There are no statistics of the amounts of fines levied on renewal of leases in the Metropolis. It may, however, be stated that the amounts of such fines are almost invariably applied as productive capital and therefore obtain exemption from Income Tax under the proviso to Rule No. II., 5, of Schedule A in the Act of 1842.

  Partition of Bengal—Increased Cost of Administration.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will state the extra cost due to the partition of Bengal and the consequent duplication of civil establishments, distinguishing between the total of salaries payable to Europeans and those payable to Natives of India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) A rough estimate of the extra cost of establishments will be found at page 242 of the recently issued Blue-book £Cd. 2746]. To this estimate must be added, vide page 246, the cost of a second member of the Board of Revenue, and a Commissioner for the Surma valley. The total extra cost will therefore be between Rs.9 and 10 lakhs annually. The details of the new establishments required are now being worked out. As regards the second part of the Question, the Indian Civil Service is open to all subjects of His Majesty without distinction of race. There are several Indian members of that Service now serving in Bengal, some of whom will probably obtain posts in the new province. In addition, a certain number of the appointments listed as open to the Provincial Service of Bengal will be transferred. Until details are settled I am unable to give exact figures.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will
  278
  say what expenditure has been incurred at Dacca in establishing a new headquarters under the recent partition scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The estimate of the cost of buildings, including land, for the new headquarters at Dacca given by the Government of India in August last was about Rs.10 lakhs, and in addition temporary buildings costing Rs. 1,85,000 were to be erected by the end of the year. I understand that the latter have already been completed. I am unable to say what amount has been spent up to date on the permanent buildings, but I observe, from a notification published in the Gazette, that a large area of land has already been appropriated for them.

  Irish Firms and Drug Contracts for Irish Unions.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the recent action of the Local Government Board, about three-fourths of the tenders for drugs and medicines to Irish unions are necessarily supplied by English firms of wholesale druggists; will he say whether Irish firms are allowed to tender for similar contracts in England; and whether he will take the necessary steps to enable Irish firms to tender for supplies on equal terms in both countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that boards of guardians have not yet undertaken the consideration of contracts for drugs for the next financial year. The proportion of the contracts secured by English firms last year was about one-third. So far as the Local Government Board for Ireland are aware, there is nothing to prevent Irish firms from tendering for similar contracts in England upon equal terms with English firms.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about three-fourths of the medicines required for the Irish Poor Law service are now supplied by English firms who do not contribute to Irish rates, although these

  279
  medicines were formerly supplied exclusively by Irish manufacturing wholesale druggists; will he say whether Irish firms are prevented from tendering for similar contracts in England; and whether, as President of the Local Government Board for Ireland, he will see that Irish boards of guardians are allowed full discretion as regards these contracts in future without the risk of losing recoupment, as provided under the Medical Charities Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As stated in reply to the preceding Question, one-third of the drug contracts, and not three-fourths, was obtained by an English firm last year. The firm in question has only recently competed for Irish medicine contracts. As regards the latter part of the Question, it must be remembered that one-half of the cost of these medicines is defrayed from public funds. It is the duty of the guardians to obtain the best return for the money of the ratepayers, whose trustees they are; and similarly it is incumbent on the Local Government Board to see that no unnecessary charge is placed on public funds. Moreover, any attempt to confine tenders to Irish firms might have the effect of prejudicing Irish tenders for various articles from being accepted in England.

  Prosecution of Mrs. Regan—Absence from Duty of Mr. Mullane.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. T. Mullane, national teacher, of Dromahane, Mallow, has frequently attended petty sessions, quarter sessions, and assizes, in connection with the prosecution of Mrs. Regan, widow, an evicted tenant; and will he say whether Mr. Mullane obtained permission from the National Commissioners for these absences from his duty, which involve loss to the pupils of these schools; and whether the Commissioners will make representations on this matter to this national teacher.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.)I am informed by the Board of National Education that Mr. Mullane was absent from duty on nine days, at various times
  280
  between November, 1903, and October,1904, in connection with litigation in which he was engaged, concerning land formerly in possession of Mrs. Regan. The Commissioners' permission in the case of occasional absence for reasonable cause is not necessary, the matter being within the discretion of the manager of the school. The Commissioners made due inquiry at the time into the absences referred to, and decided that action on their part was unnecessary. The in spector's Reports upon the school are satisfactory.

  Purchase of Grazing Land at Gloshpatrick
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board purchased, about four years ago, from the Earl of Lucan a grazing farm at Gloshpatrick, near Westport, county Mayo, and that the tenants have been paying rent to the Board for the past two years; could he give any reason why the Board has not up to the present striped this land amongst the tenants who live on small holdings, and for whose benefit it was purchased; whether any arrangement has been come to by any officials of the Board with a grazier, named Patrick McGreal whereby McGreal is to get the best portion of the arable land and a part of the mountain; if so, who are the officials who made this deal, and whether the Board was made aware of its terms before it was concluded; and, if no deal has been made with McGreal, who has plenty of land already, will he use his influence with the Board to prevent the tenants being deprived of the chance of enlargement of their holdings by having this land divided amongst them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Bingham estate, of which the farm in question forms part, became vested in the Congested Districts Board on 12th May, 1905, and prior to that date the Board had no power to deal with it. Mr. McGreal has been, since 1881, yearly tenant of the farm referred to, which consists largely of mountain land. In consideration of his surrendering a portion of this farm to the Board for the enlargement of adjacent small holdings and for

  281
  the purposes of migration, the Board have arranged to sell him the remainder, including the house. It is not the fact that Mr. McGreal is to have the best portion of the arable land. Of the 140 acres of such land contained in the farm 120 acres are coming into possession of the Board for the purposes mentioned. Arrangements for the division of the lands, with a view to the enlargement of small holdings and facilitating migration, are in progress.

  War Office Contracts for Chairs.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order for 700 chairs was recently placed in Wycombe; that the price necessitated such chairs being made by machinery, and that machine-made chairs are unsatisfactory in quality and durability; and whether he will insert in any future contracts for chairs a provision that they shall be hand-made, and that the rate of wages paid under such contract shall be not less than the trade union rate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)The War Department has no desire to give preference to either hand-made or machine-made chairs, but my hon. friend may rest assured that the usual precaution will be taken to ensure that supplies are in accordance with the terms of the contract. The customary clause requiring the payment of the current rate of wage for competent workmen in the district is one of the conditions of the contract.

  Promotion of Lieutenants to Captaincies— in the Royal Engineers.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will renew the tentative arrangement, made two years ago, under which the qualifying service for promotion from lieutenant to captain in the Royal Engineers was reduced from eleven to nine years, which arrangement, if not renewed, will expire on the 31st instant.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)This matter is now under consideration and I hope that a final decision will be arrived at without delay.

  Army—Transfers to the Reserve—Civil Employment under Government.
  SIR. C. HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the number of men in the Regular Army who have been transferred to the Reserve, or discharged since the 31st of March, 1905, and the number of those men for whom civil employment has been found under Government, by the various societies established for the purpose of finding employment for discharged soldiers, or by their own private endeavours; and further how many soldiers discharged since the above date are supported by the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)The information on this subject for the year ended 30th September, 1905, will be found in the Annual Report of the Director of Recruiting recently presented to the House. There are no figures available to give a Return up to the present date. As regards the last part of the Question the information could only be obtained by a special Return called for from each county, the details of which would be difficult to secure accurately.

  Sub-Target Rifle Machine.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any experiments ments have been made in the regular or auxiliary forces with a recent invention known as the sub-target rifle machine; and, if so, with what results.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A sub-target rifle machine is now under trial.

  Supposed Disbandment of Ten Battalions of Regulars.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the effect of the disbandment of ten battalions of the Regular Army, commencing on April 1st next, will be that the cadres will cease to exist when the operation is completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.)There is no foundation whatever for the Report that ten battalions of the Regular Army are to be disbanded, commencing on the 1st April next, or any other date.

  Free Postages and Free Railway Tickets for Members of Colonial Legislatures.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in Canada during session the Members of Parliament are allowed to send all correspondence and Blue-books free of postage charges; and whether, under a special Act, Members of Parliament obtain a free pass over all railways in the Dominion, which includes free railway travelling upon railways that are now owned by the State; and whether he can give particulars in regard to free postage and railway travelling accorded to members of the legislature in other British Colonies.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)It is the fact that in Canada, during the session, Members of the Dominion Parliament are allowed to send letters and other mailable matter free of Canadian postage charges, and, under a special Act, have a free pass over all railways in Canada. A special inquiry would have to be made to obtain the particulars asked for with regard to other British Colonies.

  Royal Commission on Reclamation of Foreshores etc.—Personnel and Terms of Reference.
  MR. J. P. MASON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be in a position to announce the personnel and terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Reclamation of Foreshores, Afforestation, etc.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)I cannot at present make any definite announcement on this subject.

  Procedure—Limits of Discussion.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in the terms of reference to the proposed Committee on the Rules of Procedure he will include such questions as a limit to the length of speeches, and the adoption of some method by which discussion on Amendments to Bills before the House may be concentrated on the most important Amendments.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I can only refer my hon
  284
  friend to the terms of the appointment of the Committee.

  Canals Commission—Suggested Representative of the Thames Conservancy.
  MR. BARNARD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of adding a member of the Thames Conservancy to the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Canals and Inland Navigations of the United Kingdom, as the Regent's Canal, the Grand Junction, and half a dozen other important canals-join the River Thames, which is controlled by the Conservancy Board.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)The canal interest is already fully represented, and I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's, suggestion.

  Canals Commission—Agricultural Representatives.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the importance of canal communication to agriculture, he will take steps to appoint representatives of the agricultural industry as additional members of the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, in order to secure the adequate representation of the agricultural industry upon the Commission.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I am not prepared to propose any further names for this Commission, which is already large and representative, and includes several members who are much interested in agriculture.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Royal Yacht—Officers' Promotions.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government intend to abolish the system of royal yacht promotions; and whether he will state how many commanders, lieutenants, and sub-lieutenants have received special promotion from the royal yachts during the ten years ending December 31st, 1905.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The following special promotions from His Majesty's yacht have been made in the last ten years: three commanders to captain; ten lieutenants to commander; thirty sub-lieutenants to lieutenant. It is not proposed to make any change in the system.

    Admiralty Orders for the Thames.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the vessels now in course of completion include twelve at Glasgow and only three on the Thames it is proposed that at least one of the new armoured ships about to be ordered shall be laid down on the Thames.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present.

    Naval Draughtsmen.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the cause of the reduction of the number of draughtsmen from 397 to 302, a reduction of nearly 24 per cent., on the figures in the Estimate for 1905–6; and whether it is proposed to discharge the ninety-five draughtsmen or to employ them in other capacities.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A reduction of forty-six draughtsmen is due to the introduction of a new system of employing women tracers in the dockyards. The reduction of the remaining 49 is the result of a decrease in drawing work generally. The men affected will not be discharged, but will revert to other duties.

    Soldiers in Civil Prisons.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will give the particulars of the offences for which sixty-seven soldiers are now undergoing punishment in civil prisons without such imprisonment carrying with it discharge from the Army.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,):
    286
    The particulars of the offences are as follows:—

    Stealing

    27

    Malicious damage

    1

    Larceny

    7

    Obscene language

    2

    Assaulting female

    2

    Assault

    10

    Absent from Militia training

    2

    Attempted suicide

    1

    Bigamy

    1

    Debtor

    1

    Drunk and disorderly

    1

    Indecency

    3

    Ill-treating donkey

    1

    Forgery

    1

    False answer on attestation

    2

    Fraudulent enlistment

    2

    64†

    † I may add that the total number should have been given as 64 and not as 67.

    MR. LEA: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay down a ruling that no soldier having once been committed to a civil prison shall again be allowed to wear the uniform?
    MR. HALDANE: That requires consideration.

    Recruiting Report.
    MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the annual report upon recruiting, summarised in the Westminster Gazette on March 1st, 1906, was not obtainable in the Vote Office on that day; and whether he will take steps to ensure that Parliamentary Papers will be communicated to the House at least as soon as they are given to the Press.
    MR. HALDANE: I am informed by the printers that the supply of this Report was delivered to the Vote Office at 8 a.m. on the 1st instant. I am therefore unable to understand why my hon. friend was unable to obtain a copy. The arrangements for distribution to the Press are not in my hands.

    Pietermaritzburg Garrison.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the annual cost of the battalion of troops to be stationed at Pietermaritzburg at the request of the Natal Government, including due allowance for the cost of training the troops, and for their reserve pay; and what contribution the Natal Government propose to make to this cost.
    MR. HALDANE: The question of the force, if any, to be stationed at Pietermaritzburg is under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

    Natal Boundaries.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether before making any changes in the government of the Transvaal, it is intended to make inquiries into the annexation to Natal of Vryheid, Utrecht, and Wakkerstroom.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): His Majesty's Government cannot undertake to revoke the solemn and deliberate act of policy by which these districts were under the late Government annexed to Natal.

    Chinese Coolie Licences for the Witwatersrand.
    MR. WALSH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he would be willing to appoint or recommend the appointment of a small Committee to ascertain what urgent or exceptional circumstances, if any, prevailed in the Witwatersrand previous to the issue of the licences of November and December, 1905, and to report at as early a date as possible.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Lieutenant-Governor of the Transvaal exercised, as he had on previous occasions, the discretion vested in him as to granting licences; which he was entitled to do so long as no definite instructions on this point were given to him by the Secretary of State through the Governor. His
    288
    Majesty's Government while not able to regard the transaction with pleasure, feel that the responsibility and blame properly belongs to the late Administration, who failed to indicate any definite limit to the Chinese experiment either in point of time or numbers, and in these circumstances the Secretary of State does not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry.

    British Indian Subjects in South Africa.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House what representations are being made to Natal or the Cape Colony with regard to the status of British-Indian subjects in those Colonies; and if it is proposed to press the claim of British-Indian subjects for equal rights as regards tenure of land and commercial facilities.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No fresh representations are at present being made. British Indians are not unequally affected by the general law of the Cape or of Natal in respect of holding land or of trading, but some municipalities have power to impose commercial restrictions.

    Transvaal Government Officials.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what number of officials will be recalled on the establishment of responsible government in the Transvaal.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The establishment of responsible government will not necessarily involve the retirement from office of any officers beyond those members of the Executive Council whose offices become political.

    Importation of Chinese Coolies.
    MR. STAVELEI HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House the estimates which caused his Department to consider that the continued importation of Chinese coolies was justifiable, in view of the expense involved by stopping it.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I think it would be undesirable to lay estimates

    289
    of claims hypothetical upon a contingency which has been avoided even if they existed in a definite form. But they do not exist, and therefore the Secretary of State is not prepared to lay them.

    Mr. Boland's Charges.
    MR. DUNN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the evidence in support of the alleged untruthfulness of the last paragraph of Mr. Boland's communication to the Morning Leader (vide No. 14, Cd. 2819), is an extract from the Transvaal Leader, published thirty-one days after Mr. Boland's communication was written, and nine days after it was published; and whether, having regard to this fact, he will ask for an extract from any Transvaal newspaper referring to the outrage in question, published prior to the date upon which Mr. Boland wrote (14th August, 1905) or prior to the date of the publication of such communication (6th September, 1905).
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is fully entitled to call attention to this fact. I will inquire whether previous notice had been taken in the Press of the outrage in question. But having regard to the heavy charges involved in telegraphing to South Africa and the pressing need of public economy, I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the inquiries by despatch.

    Arrests of Natives in Natal.
    MR. HAROLD COX,: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the arrest of a large number of natives by the Colonial authorities in Natal, and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to secure a proper trial for these subjects of His Majesty before any punishment is inflicted upon them?
    MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government do not consider that they could properly interfere with the responsibility of the Colonial Government in this matter. There is no reason to anticipate that these natives will not receive propertrial.

    South African Imports of Coolies.
    MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date the next shipload of Chinese coolies is expected to arrive in South Africa.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot tell at present when the next shipload will arrive.

    Cape Colony Disfranchised Voters.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, as the biennial registration of voters in the Cape Colony will take place early in 1907, the 10,000 Colonists disfranchised in the latter months of 1902 for a period of five years for having taken part in the war cannot have their names restored to the register until 1909, after the election of the new House of Assembly; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent this extension of the term of disfranchisement.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The matter is one for the consideration of the Government of the Cape Colony, which, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, enjoys full powers of responsible Government.

    Transvaal Civil Servants and Responsible Government.
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say whether the conferring of responsible government on the Transvaal will adversely affect the members of the Civil Service, including magistrates, teachers, and police, now employed there; and whether, before their engagement, these officials asked for or were given any guarantees that their position would be unaffected by any changes that might be made in the government of the Colony.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As in the case of other Colonies upon which responsible Government has been conferred, the interests of the public servants of the Transvaal will have to be entrusted to the honour and justice of the new Government. No such pledges have been or could have been given by His Majesty's Government.

    The Boers and the New Transvaal Constitution.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended, before finally deciding on the responsible Government Constitution for the Transvaal, to ask Lord Selborne to confer with Boer representatives with the object of ascertaining the views on this subject of the Boer people generally.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Selborne has already been in communication with the Boer leaders as well as with other political parties on the subject, and His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of ascertaining the views of all sections of the population.

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    MR.CONOEO'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the number of Chinese coolies in the compounds in South Africa will be immediately reduced by 40 per cent, as a result of the decision of the Imperial Government to repatriate those coolies desiring to return to China at the public expense; and if he will say what steps are being taken to inform the coolies of the decision of the Imperial Government.
    MR. CHUECHILL: The time has not yet arrived for taking steps to inform the coolies, and meanwhile it is not possible to say what number of coolies will desire to return to China as a result of the decision of His Majesty's Government. The matter is being expedited, and I trust a definite announcement will not be long delayed.

    Australian Commonwealth and Old Age Pensions.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has issued a Commission to inquire into the subject of old age pensions; whether such Commission has made a Report; and will the Colonial Department issue the same, if any, to the Members of this House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that a Commission appointed by the Commonwealth Government on the subject of old age pensions has recently issued its Report, but the Report has not yet reached this country. I will place copies in the Library of the House as soon as they arrive.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman place on the Table of the House a report on the working of old age pensions in such colonies as they have been established?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Sir Frederick Darley and Irish Home Rule.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the correspondence between Sir Frederick Darley, Lieutenant-Governor of New South Wales, and His Eminence Cardinal Moran, the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, in which Sir Frederick Darley admits and reiterates a statement attributed to him, to which the Cardinal directed his attention, that the Home Rule movement in Australia was for an object which he looked on not only as disloyal, but also as one that causes unrest and works untold misery to Ireland; and whether, having regard to the position of Sir Frederick Darley as Lieutenant-Governor or Acting Governor of New South Wales, and as such the representative of the Crown, holding that position by appointment of the Imperial Government, expressions of partisan feeling on questions of Party politics are consonant with the dignity of his office or in accordance with the practice observed by Imperial Officers in the Colonies of refraining from participation in the arena of Party warfare; and whether any, and, if so, what intimation of the impropriety of his language will be conveyed to Sir Frederick Darley from the Imperial Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My attention has been drawn to the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers. It appears that the statement made by Sir

    293
    Frederick Darley on the subject of Home Rule was originally made in a private letter. The Secretary of State is not possessed of sufficient information as to the circumstances in which this letter was made public to enable him to form an opinion, upon the incident as a whole. It is generally recognised to be undesirable that Officers of State representing the Crown should associate themselves publicly with controversial statements upon matters of Party politics.

    Sokoto Punitive Expedition.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what reinforcements are to be sent for the punitive expedition in Sokoto.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Two hundred and fifty native troops of the West African Frontier Force have been sent as a precautionary measure into Northern Nigeria from the neighbouring colony of Lagos. It is not anticipated that any further reinforcements will be required.

    Relief of the Education Rates.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to make special grants of money towards educational purposes in such places as West Ham.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am unable to make any statement on this subject at present.

    Coal Duty—Cost of Collection.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state approximately the cost of collection of the coal duty during the financial year ending March 31st, 1905; and the net amount of revenue realised by the duty in the same period.
    MR. ASQUITH: The net amount of revenue realised by the coal duty during the financial year ended March 31st, 1905, was £2,052,774. As the same officers are engaged in the collection
    294
    of the coal duty and other Customs duties, it is impossible to ascertain even approximately, what portion of the general cost of collection is attributable to this particular duty. The introduction of the corn, sugar and coal duties taken together involved an increase of 444 persons and an additional expense for pay and allowances, travelling, clothing and law charges of £57,600 per annum.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Could the right hon. Gentleman state how many of those officers he would be able to dispense with if the coal duty alone were removed?
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I could not. It is almost impossible to ascertain because the same officers are employed in the collection both of the coal and the sugar tax.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that the same officers being employed for both duties, the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to dispense with the services of any of them if the coal duty alone were repealed.
    MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. That is an assumption the right hon. Gentleman must not make.

    Vacant Crown Lands
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are 70,092 acres of agricultural land in twenty-three counties of England now let by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests at an average rental of 21s. 6d.per acre, together with sundry vacant farms in Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, and other counties; and whether he will give instructions that all vacant lands and all lands suitable for farming purposes, as they fall vacant, of the above 70,092 acres shall be placed at the disposal of the county councils in which they are respectively situate, or of the adjacent cities, for the purpose of forming small holdings to bring the people back to the

    295
    land, or for the purpose of use by the distress Committees for giving labour to the unemployed, rent in all cases being charged and collected at existing rates, and particularly that the lands in Cheshire should be made available for the county council of Cheshire and the adjoining cities of Liverpool, Manchester, and Chester.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Commissioner of Woods will be ready to entertain applications from county and other councils to become tenants, at reasonable rents and subject to usual conditions, of agricultural lands that may from time to time be in hand. I may add that negotiations in which my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket is I believe interested are now in progress with reference to the taking of a farm at Burwell for the purpose of small holdings. There are no such lands in hand in Cheshire at present.

    Electoral Pressure on Workmen Voters.
    MAJOR RENTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that it is alleged that many workmen have been dismissed on account of the votes they are presumed to have given at the recent general election; and whether he is prepared to advise any alteration in or strengthening of the law to prevent such action in the future.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): My attention has not been called to the allegations to which the hon. Member refers. If particulars of such cases can be given I shall be prepared to consider the question whether any action is necessary or practicable.

    Chinese Immigration into Liverpool.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the continually increasing importation of Chinese into Liverpool, who mostly arrive as members of steamship crews, and to the industries which they take away from
    296
    British labour; and whether he would be disposed to take any steps in the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not in possession of any information upon this, matter other than that which the hon. Member has kindly furnished me. If the hon. Member will lay further detailed information before me I will give it my consideration.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that thirty Chinese were brought up for offences one day last week?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member himself supplied me with information to that effect. If the Chinese offend against the law of course they are subject to the Aliens Act and can be dealt with accordingly.

    Alien Prisoners at the Clerkenwell Sessions.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the recent Clerkenwell Sessions ten aliens were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, amounting in the aggregate to thirty-two-years of penal servitude and several years of hard labour, and that the construction put by the authorities on Section 3 (1) of the Aliens Act appears to preclude such convicted aliens being immediately deported, thereby causing expense to the country, amounting at £50 each to £1,600; and whether he is prepared to propose some remedy.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. I have received a large number of recommendations for expulsion in cases where the courts have thought right to impose considerable sentences of imprisonment or penal servitude. It is a matter for the discretion of the court whether they recommend expulsion in addition to or in lieu of the sentence. Where an alien has committed a crime deserving of a long sentence of imprisonment or of penal servitude it would not be right to relieve him of this punishment merely because he is to be sent back to his own country; and if foreign criminals knew that they

    297
    could come to England and commit crime with no worse consequence than that of being sent home at the public expense, I doubt whether there would be any decrease in the amount of alien crime in the United Kingdom or even of the expense occasioned by it.

    Police Discipline—Infliction of Fines.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to stop disciplinary fines being imposed on policemen.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Power is given by statute to the Watch Committees of boroughs and the chief constables of counties to punish misconduct in policemen by fine as well as by other forms of punishment. The power seems to me to be a reasonable one and I am not prepared to take steps to put an end to it.

    Aliens Act—Rejections.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the total number of immigrants rejected under the provisions of the Aliens Act, differentiating between those rejected after appeal and without appeal; also the number arriving from Russia, and the number of these rejected; and whether he would state what is the nature of proof required to establish the fact that an immigrant is a political refugee.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The figures of rejections for February are still being worked out, but I hope to be able to give them every shortly. In January, as I stated in answer to a similar question on the 1st instant, eighty-six alien immigrants were refused leave to land on appeal, and three did not appeal from the refusal of the immigration officer; total, eighty-nine. Owing to the number of alien passengers landing in the United Kingdom it has not been possible yet with the staff at my disposal to distinguish all the nationalities and extract the numbers of those who are Russians. For the moment I can only say that of the eighty-nine persons from whom leave to land was withheld in January, fifty-six were of Russian nationality;
    298
    but I should like to add that only two of these came direct from Russian ports. I am making inquiry of the several Immigration Boards on the point raised in the last sentence of the hon. Member's Question.

    Chinese Sailors on British Ships.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that certain British steamships using the port of Liverpool are manned by Chinese, to the exclusion of British labour; and whether he would be disposed to take any steps in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Yes, Sir, and I admit the importance of the question referred to by the hon. Member. The number of foreigners in the British Mercantile Marine who cannot understand the English language is a matter of grave concern, and, in connection with the Shipping Bill to be shortly introduced, I am considering whether any palliative can be applied.
    MR. JOYCE: Is it not the fault of the British shipowner that these foreigners are employed?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Because they accept low wages.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question relates solely to Chinese labourers on British merchant ships?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And I have answered the hon. Member's Question.
    MR. JOYCE: Are not Chinese foreigners?

    Railway Servants—Hours of Duty.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of cases of engine-drivers, firemen, guards, shunters, and signalmen employed on the railways in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, who had been on duty

    299
    for thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen hours and upwards per day for the month of March, 1905, and the total number employed in each of those grades.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no information of the nature desired as to shunters, but particulars of the hours worked by the other classes of railway men referred to, and the numbers employed, will be found in a Return (Command Paper 2781) circulated in December last.
    MR. BELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the totals are not included in the Return to which he refers? It is done in other Returns.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member will give notice of a Question I will look into the matter.

    British Shareholders in South African Mines.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he caused the registers of shareholders at Somerset House to be searched in order to ascertain the extent of British interests in South African mines, and brought the result to the knowledge of his colleagues before their policy as regards the Transvaal and Orange River Colony was decided upon; and further if he can inform the House how many of His Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and elsewhere are registered as such shareholders.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not cause the registers of shareholders at Somerset House to be searched in order to ascertain the extent of British interests in South African mines, nor would any such search be of value inasmuch as nearly all the South African mining companies of any importance are registered in South Africa. For this reason I am unable to inform the House how many of His Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and elsewhere are registered as shareholders in South African mining companies.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement that there are upwards of 200,000 shareholders in this country and 60,000 abroad, and is there no information at the Board of Trade on that subject?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: All the information is in South Africa, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to get it he had better put a Question to the Under-Secretary for the Colonies.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I will do so now.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I must ask for notice.
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us how many of these shareholders are bears and how many bulls?
    MR. CROOKS: And how many asses amongst them.

    British Commerce and the "Most-Favoured-Nation" Clause.
    MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if any steps on behalf of British commerce are being taken, in view of the fact that the United States hold that a treaty right to the mostfavoured-nation treatment does not entitle its possessor to participate in special privileges granted to others in return for reciprocal concessions.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Communications on this subject have recently taken place with the United States Government. I am not at present able to make any further statement on the subject.

    Consular Reports.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a Return of extracts relating to coal from the Reports received up to the present date from His Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers abroad, for 1904 and 1905, or from such Reports received since the date of the similar Return issued in

    301
    October, 1904 (Parliamentary Paper, 343, 1904).
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be glad to give such a Return if the hon. Member will move for it.

    Wireless Telegraphy—Working of the Act.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any Report has been presented to Parliament on the working of the Wireless Telegraph Act; and whether he will state the number of licences granted, the fees charged, and the number of prosecutions, if any, instituted under the Act.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): A Return dealing with the working of the Wireless Telegraph Act was presented on the 18th July, 1905. A further Return is in preparation, which will show the number of licences granted. The fees charged in the case of commercial licences are £1 per annum for each station and 5s. per annum for each ship. No fees are charged on licences for experimental purposes. It has not been found necessary to institute any prosecutions under the Act.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the Return in preparation show the number of licences refused?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, Sir, it will show the number of applications made, of them granted, and of those refused.

    Magazine Postal Rates to Canada.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is taking any steps with regard to the reduction of the postal rates to Canada on British magazines, periodic cals, and newspapers, under the special circumstances of the case.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The question is engaging my attention. But I may take this opportunity of pointing out that the present charge of 4d. a lb. on these postal items does not cover the average cost of the Colonial traffic, which is at present carried on at a loss. A re-
    302
    duction of the general charge on such articles at home, and in the Colonies, sufficient to meet the Canadian case, would entail a very heavy loss of revenue; a loss which could not be recouped, but would only be made greater by any increase that took place in the amount carried due to the reduction of the rate. The question, therefore, of a change which would involve a large general reduction in this item of postage is, under existing conditions, not feasible. The position of Canada, however, in regard to this matter is a peculiar one. But I see, I fear, little prospect of attaining the desired object, unless some special arrangement, entailing probably some sacrifice on either side, could be devised, and in a form which would not create a precedent.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLINasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that these magazines, etc., carried by the Canadian mail service were so conveyed at the expense of the Canadian Government, and that the British Government contributed nothing to the cost of the mail service.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONwas understood to reply that we paid our proportion of the transit dues, and he did not think any portion of the charge which should properly fall on the British Government was paid by the Canadian Government.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: But the total cost of the mail service to this country is borne by the Canadian Government.

    Voting Registers.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider the advisability of giving to county councils the power to order the printing of the registers in street order, instead of in alphabetical order, where it is found that such a procedure would be advisable, and so lessen the amount of work which is at present thrown upon candidates and their workers in many elections in county divisions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): County councils can already give directions in this matter so far as regards any borough or urban district, which is co-extensive with an electoral division of a Parliamentary county. There would be some difficulty in giving effect to the arrangement proposed as respects rural parishes, but I will take note of the suggestion of my hon. friend.

    Meat Inspection.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the fact that the standard of meat condemnation, strongly urged by the Local Government Board upon local authorities in 1901, is not infrequently ignored in whole or part by sanitary authorities; and if he will, in the interest of the public health, take steps to make the standard referred to absolutely compulsory.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: According to the latest information I have received, there seems no reason to doubt that as regards the carcases of cattle the standard referred to is commonly acted upon by the officers of local authorities. I understand, however, that this is not the case to anything like the same extent as regards the carcases of pigs. The Local Government Board have on several occasions impressed upon local authorities the importance of uniformity of action in dealing with tuberculous meat, but legislation would be necessary to make the standard compulsory. I could not promise to propose legislation on the subject pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis.

    Mall Improvement.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will say what is the present position with regard to the Charing Cross entrance to the new road in St. James's Park; and when it is likely to be completed and thrown open for public traffic.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The position has under-
    304
    gone no recent change. The foundation of the buildings and entrance to Charing Cross are in course of construction. It is impossible to fix a date for the opening of the road, which must depend upon the completion of the buildings.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has all the land necessary to complete the Charing Cross end of the Mall been acquired?
    MR. HARCOURT: I think so, but if the hon. Member will put down a Question I will inquire.

    Scottish Herring Fishers and a Close Time.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the distress prevailing in the West of Scotland, through the failure of the herring fishery for the last three years, the Fishery Board for Scotland will take action on the lines of such of the resolutions as were carried unanimously at the Fishery Conference held at Rothesay, in November, 1905, at which all sections of the fishing industry were represented; and whether, in default of such action, the Board proposes to take any action whatever.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): There are conflicting views as to the causes of the failure referred to and as to the advisability of a close time, and I understand that at the Rothesay Conference strong protests were made from more than one quarter against a close time. The whole subject is at present under careful investigation.

    Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists with reference to the composition of the Fishery Board for Scotland, he will introduce a measure to increase the membership of the Board.
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

    Jury Challenging in Ireland.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Instructions recently issued to Crown

    305
    Solicitors as to the discharge of their duties in ordering jurors to stand by.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): No new instructions have been recently issued to Crown Solicitors as to the discharge of their duties in ordering jurors to stand by. I have recently communicated by letter with each Crown Solicitor in Ireland, in pursuance of the intention I expressed in answer to the Question addressed to me by the hon. Member for North Sligo on Thursday last, † impressing upon him the importance of strict compliance with the Rule on the subject at present in force. This Rule, which was originally issued in February, 1894, was laid on the Table of this House (Paper No. 33 of 1894).

    Irish Town Tenants' Grievances.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if, in view of the fact that several House Lords are anticipating the passing of a Town Tenants Bill for Ireland by harshly treating their tenants, he will recommend the Government to introduce legislation with a view of staying proceedings in all such reported cases pending this legislation.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. BRYCE,): I have not received any information that owners of house property in Ireland are meting out harsh treatment to their tenants. I observe that one of the hon. Member's colleagues is about to introduce a Town Tenants' Bill, and the Government will then have an opportunity of considering their attitude towards the Bill. I am afraid that the suggestion that legislation should be introduced with the object of staying proceedings by property-owners is not a practicable one.

    Irish Rent Reductions.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the average percentage of reduction given by the Sub-Commissioners on all rents fixed by them, year by year, since 1889, first
    †See(4) Debates, clii., 1322.
    306
    for the whole of Ireland, and secondly for county Westmeath.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member will find full statistics on this subject in the Appendix to the Annual Reports of the Land Commission presented to Parliament. I would refer him in particular to the Tables on pages 15, 17, 19, 21, and 31, of the Appendix to last year's report.

    Labourers' Allotments at Derryroe.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the last scheme promoted under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts by the Macroom Rural District Council, Mary Herlihy, Derryroe, electoral division of Kilberrehert, applied for and was granted an additional half acre; will he say whether the order granting the half acre has been recently cancelled; and, if so, will he state the reason therefor, and if it is not still possible to have the half acre for this applicant included in the scheme.
    MR. BRYCE: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The Local Government Board informed the Council from the outset that, in view of the state of arrears into which the collection of the rent for labourers' cottages in the district had fallen, they would not be prepared to authorise additional plots in any case in which more than two months' rent was due. Before the Provisional Order was issued, a period of twelve months elapsed, during which the tenants had an opportunity of complying with the Board's requirement; but fifty-three tenants (including Mary Herlihy) failed to comply with that requirement. The plot in question cannot, accordingly, be now authorised except in pursuance of a new scheme.

    Oatfleld and Newcastle Estates, Ballinasloe.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution passed by the Ballinasloe No. 1 Rural District Council, disapproving of the action of the Congested Districts Board in connection with the estates of Oatfield

    307
    and Newcastle, of which the Board has been in possession these two years past;and will he say whether the Board has dismissed the permanent staff of labourers kept by the late owner, Mr. Longworth; whether he is aware that these lands were taken from the local peasantry whose descendants are now agricultural labourers in the district; and whether, when these lands come to be distributed, the claims of those who were deprived of their birthright will be considered and provided for before strangers or outsiders are allotted any portion of these estates; and whether he will consider the advisability of transferring these lands from the Congested Districts Board to the Estates Commissioners with a view to an early distribution.
    MR. BRYCE: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they have received the resolution referred to, and will consider it at their next meeting towards the end of this month. In the meantime, I am not in a position to answer the remaining inquiries in the Question; but it must not be assumed that the Board will consider that the only Irishmen to be placed upon lands that may come into their hands are those who live in the immediate vicinity.

    Harlech Estate, County Westmeath.
    MR GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of a divided farm on the Harlech estate, county Westmeath, the landlord, on the valuation of his own valuer voluntarily gave a reduction of £19 on the rent of the portion retained by the former occupant, and that the Land Commission gave no reduction on the rent of the portion transferred, although an acre had been taken off the latter for the use of a labourer; and will he devise some practical means of testing the ability and impartiality of the Sub-Commissioners.
    MR BRYCE: The Land Commission are unable to trace the case referred to upon their records from the information given in the Question. In regard to the final inquiry of the Question, I may state that, under the rules
    308
    of March 13th, 1899, lay assistant Commissioners appointed for the first time since that date are tested by the Civil Service Commissioners, in, amongst other subjects, agriculture and the principles of surveying. I do not see what test of the impartiality of the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners can be supplied otherwise than by the right of appeal already provided for by law.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proper persons to fix rents for tenants in Ireland are broken down landlords and land agents.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Colonel Symthe, of Collinstown, and his Tenants.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a letter of Colonel Smythe, of Collinstown, Westmeath, dated January 22nd, 1906, allowing his tenants a month to consider his terms of sale; a letter from Colonel Smythe's solicitors, dated February 2nd, demanding from one of these tenants immediate payment of a hanging gale with costs of demand, and a copy of a writ for this amount, served on the February 5th, before the month allowed for consideration had run half its course; and whether, in view of the danger to social peace, and to the security of the State for the payment of annuities so contracted, of this method of forcing tenants to sign improvident purchase agreements, His Majesty's Government will take any steps to check or counteract such conduct.
    MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member has sent to me, for my inspection, the documents referred to in the first two paragraphs of his Question, and the facts appear to be correctly stated. As to the final inquiry of the Question, it must be remembered that, supposing the facts to be as stated, His Majesty's Government have no power to intervene. The Estates Commissioners, however, inform me that should proceedings for the sale of the estate come before them, they will, before sanctioning any advance, make such inquiry into the

    309
    circumstances of the case as may 'be within their province as denned by law.

    Lefroy Estate, County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say how the remainder of the Lefroy Estate, in Cahirconlish, county Limerick, stands; what progress has been made with the apportionment of the thirty-four acre lots among the labourers of the locality, and whether the No. 1 Limerick District Council are proceeding in the matter, so that the plots may soon be available for tillage; has Mr. Lefroy approached the Estates Commissioners in regard to the sale to them of the other parts of the demesne; and is it within the jurisdiction of the Estates Commissioners to approach Mr. Lefroy with regard to purchasing it in the interests of the labourers.
    MR. BRYCE: The Limerick No. 1 Rural District Council have recently submitted to the Local Government Board an extensive improvement scheme, which includes a proposal to acquire, by direct purchase from the vendor, thirty-four acres of land on the Lefroy Estate, for the purpose of labourers' cottages. The Inspector's Report on the scheme has now been received, and is at present under the consideration of the Board. The Estates Commissioners are negotiating with the vendor for the purchase of 200 acres of his estate, including seventy-one acres of the demesne of Cahirconlish. The Commissioners have jurisdiction to purchase land for resale to trustees for the purposes, amongst other things, of the Labourers' Acts, such lands to be held upon trust in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant. (Sections iand 20 of the Act of 1903.)

    Donegal Agricultural Committee and Instructresses in Butter Making.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in May, 1904, the Donegal Committee of Agriculture advertised for and appointed two ladies, natives of county Donegal, Miss O'Malley and Miss McMenomin, to the positions of instructresses in butter making, but that
    310
    the Department of Agriculture refused to sanction these appointments on the sole ground that these ladies, whose qualifications were of the highest, were natives of the county in which their duties as instructresses would be performed; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this action of the Department, the Committee have refused to put the agricultural schemes in operation, to the detriment of agricultural instruction in the county, and that for upwards of two years the deadlock caused by the attitude of the Department has been productive of discontent; and what steps, if any, does the Government propose to take with a view to the prevention by the Department of natives of county Donegal from filling appointments in that county conferred on them by the Donegal Committee, and for which their qualifications are unquestionable.
    MR. BRYCE: It is the fact that the ladies named in the Question were selected for the positions mentioned by the Donegal Committee, and that the appointments were not sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture, and that the County Committee have in consequence refused to put the butter making scheme into operation in the county. Other schemes, however, are in operation in the county. I am informed that when the Department offered the ladies in question an opportunity of being examined to show their fitness for appointments elsewhere, only one attended and she failed to pass. It has been the view of the Department that, in order to avoid undue local influences or favouritism, and for other reasons, instructors should not, as a rule, be employed in the counties to which they belong; and the Council of Agriculture, representing the Committee of the County Councils throughout Ireland, has never expressed disapproval of this view.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I observe that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Department considers that "as a rule" instructors should not be employed in the counties to which they belong. Seeing that profound dissatisfaction has been caused in Donegal by the action of the Department

    311
    cannot the right hon. Gentleman say that this is a case in which exception might be made?
    MR. BRYCE: Of course I am willing to consider any questions that may be brought to my notice, but I am bound to say that the rule, as far as I can judge, appears to be one which should be observed.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Donegal Committee offered a compromise and suggested that the lady for East Donegal should be allowed to act in West Donegal. As it is a large county will the right hon. Gentleman accept that?
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is this policy of refusing to employ natives in their own country the reason for the Agricultural Board's employing so many Scotchmen?
    MR. FLAVIN: Is the Tight hon. Gentleman aware that the Kerry Committee have unanimously refused to accept the instructions of the Department because of this rule?
    MR. BRYCE: I have not heard that.
    MR. FLAVIN: It is so.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Let the Agricultural Department overhaul this rule.

    Suggested Numbering of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the cities of Waterford, Cork, Limerick, and Belfast the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who perform the duties of policemen in those cities have numbers on their uniforms for the purpose of identification; that although the Royal Irish Constabulary in the cities have numbers on their uniforms, the constabulary in country districts do not wear numbers on their uniforms; and that the constabulary in the cities, when drafted even for a few hours into country districts, have the numbers removed from their uniforms; what is
    312
    the reason that the means for identification of a policeman by the wearing of a number on his uniform should be afforded to the inhabitants of the Irish cities and denied to the inhabitants of the Irish country districts; and whether, having regard to the frequency of the cases in which members of the Irish Constabulary have refused to give their names when required so to do by persons desiring to complain of their conduct, and the difficulty of identifying them by reason of their uniform, steps will be taken to provide that members of the Royal Irish. Constabulary, like the mem- of the police of other countries, should wear numbers on their uniforms, both in town or country.
    MR. BRYCE: The facts are as stated in the first two clauses of the Question, but I am informed that it is not the case that the city constabulary, as a rule, have the numbers removed from their uniforms when drafted into the country, nor that members of the constabulary frequently refuse to give their names when requested to do so. The reasons for the existing practice have been frequently stated in this House, and I am not prepared, as at present advised, to say that that practice should be altered. Members of the force are being constantly removed, singly or in detachments, from one part of the country to another, so that a system of numbering by divisions could not easily be arranged, and no difficulty appears to have occurred in ascertaining the names of men against whom any complaint is made.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the case that constables constantly refuse to give their names?
    MR. BRYCE: I am surprised to hear that.

    Dr. Condon's Ballyshannon Estate.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Dr. Condon, of Ballyshannon, county Donegal, sold a small property to his tenants in the immediate vicinity of Ballyshannon two years ago; and will

    313
    he say, in view of the fact that the property is entirely unencumbered, there being no head rent nor any complication of title, nor yet any parties to whom the funds are to be allocated other than Dr. Condon, the vendor, what is the cause of the delay in forwarding Dr. Condon his money, seeing that the money has been lodged in court for well nigh a year, Dr. Condon receiving neither principal nor interest for that period; and what steps, if any, will be taken to expedite the conclusion of this transaction.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that the purchase money in this case was advanced and paid into the Bank of Ireland on March 16th, 1905. After some delay, the vendor's title was lodged on June 5th, 1905, and the examiner's rulings on title were issued within three days. The Judicial Commissioner has already, viz., in November last—called upon the solicitor for the vendor to explain his delay in lodging the required schedule for the distribution of the purchase money, whereupon the solicitor undertook to speed the proceedings. The schedule, however, has not yet been lodged, and I am informed that the cas will, at the first opportunity, be again placed on the judge's list for explanation of the delay.

    Ballycastle Petty Sessions Clerk
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the clerk of petty sessions for Ballycastle District, county Antrim, follows ten other avocations, including land steward, gamekeeper, pier overseer, pier pay clerk, mining pay clerk, bog bailiff, land agent, auctioneer, shipping agent: and manager of his father's business, and that these occupations compel him to discharge by deputy most of the duties of petty sessions clerk; whether it is permitted by the regulations governing such appointments to hold so many other appointments or to discharge his duties by deputy; and whether any steps will be taken in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The registrar of petty sessions clerks informs me that the petty sessions clerk referred to is also engaged in the following occupations and no others, viz.:—Auctioneer; agent for a small coasting steamer; agent to a local landlord; and cashier to a local mining company. The registrar states that the clerk performs his duties in that capacity satisfactorily, and has never performed them by deputy. The regulations in force when the clerk was appointed did not prohibit the following of the occupations mentioned. In rural districts the duties of petty sessions clerks occupy but a limited portion of their time, and their remuneration is on a corresponding scale.
    MR. MACVEAGH: How does he carry on all these avocations?
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: He's a Poo Bah.

    Kerry Small Holdings.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board propose to take any steps for the enlargement and improvement of holdings in the Gneevgullia and Rathmore districts of the county of Kerry, where some large farms are at present available for the purpose; and if he can state if the board have any representative in the county, and what his name and address are at the present time.
    MR. BRYCE: The Congested Districts Board have not yet purchased any land near the townland first named in the Question, and, are, therefore, not in a position to take present steps for the enlargement of the holdings on that townland. Rathmore is not situate within the congested districts. The farms referred to in the Question have not yet been offered for sale to the board by either the owners or occupiers. Mr. A. H. McLean, who is stationed at Tralee, is the board's inspector in charge of the estates purchased by them in the counties of Kerry and Cork.

    Dungiven School Teacher.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary

    315
    to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a certain Mr. Kennedy brought a charge against the teacher of the Dungiven F.N.S., county Donegal, for alleged assault on his children; that a local magistrate who framed the charge adjudicated after-ward's on it; that the teacher was fined by the Dungiven bench; that this conviction was afterwards quashed in the Court of King's Bench, Dublin, and that as a result the children of Mr. Kennedy were extremely troublesome and disobedient, and were excluded by the manager without a promise of good behaviour; and whether, seeing that the teacher, though perfectly innocent, has not received any salary during the past fourteen months, he proposes to take any action in this matter. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Rev. E. Loughrey, P.P., was removed from the managership of the Dungiven F.N.S., county Donegal, for doing his duty as manager in helping to maintain order and discipline in the school; that this same clergyman is still manager of six other schools in the parish, and that a secret inquiry was held, at which neither manager nor teacher was present, the result of which was that Father Loughrey was removed from the managership of this school; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in February, 1905, Mr. Kennedy prosecuted the mistress of the school named for an assault upon his daughter, a pupil of the school. The Magistrates at petty sessions unanimously convicted and fined the teacher. Notice of appeal to Quarter Sessions was served by the defendant, but was afterwards withdrawn. She carried the case to the Court of King's Bench, where the conviction was quashed on a technical point. Her salary was not held back by the Commissioners, but she persistently refused to accept the salary awarded to her on the ground that it was insufficient for a teacher of her standing. After the legal proceedings, the Rev. Mr. Loughrey, who was then the local manager of the school, refused admission to
    316
    the children of Mr. Kennedy until an apology should be given by both parent and. children; but the manager was advised by the Commissioners that this action was unwarranted. He refused, however, to recede from the position which he had taken up. An inquiry, at which both manager and teacher were present, was thereupon held by the chief inspector, as the result of which the Rev. Mr. Loughrey was removed by the Commissioners from the managership of the school, upon the ground that he had improperly refused to admit the children of Mr. Kennedy, and had declined to recognise the authority of the Commissioners. Mr. Loughrey is still recognised as manager of seven other national schools, as to which no question of the Commissioners' authority has arisen. The entire matter is one for the Commissioners, and not for the Executive Government.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the National Board should hold an independent inquiry into this case?
    MR. BRYCE: I will forward to that Board any communication I may receive from the hon. Member, but I am not in a position to express any opinion myself.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the National Board to consider as to removing this manager from the control of other schools?
    MR. BRYCE: These are mattes of administration which I do not think should be made the subject of questions in this House.

    Irish Labourers' Holdings.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the instructions issued to inspectors under the Land Act of 1903 suggest, in the case of labourers paying rent either in money or in kind to the farmer and not to the vendor, that their status should remain the same as it was previously; and, whether, in view of the specific provisions of the Act requiring each man in exclusive occupation of a parcel of land to be made the owner of it subject to the purchase annuity, he proposes to take

    317
    any, and, if any, what action in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, there are, so far as I am aware, no provisions of the Act requiring that every man in exclusive occupation of a "parcel of land" should be made the owner thereof subject to a purchase annuity; though the policy of the Act certainly seems to require that tenants and sub-tenants of holdings should, as far as possible, be all so dealt with upon the sale of an estate. The interest of the labourer in a plot is not technically a holding within the meaning of the Act. The Estates Commissioners carry out the policy of the Act, so far as they can, and the Government do not consider that any further action in the matter is required.

    Leahy's Estate, Cahirciveen.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the circumstances under which negotiations for the sale of the J. W. Leahy estate at Aghatubrid, Cahirciveen, have been carried on; and whether a sale of this estate will be sanctioned at twenty-three years' purchase on what are really first-term rents, in view, of the fact that the tenants were compelled to sign purchase agreements, through being threatened with a claim for so-called arrears.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that seventeen agreements for purchase in respect of this estate have been lodged. In three of these cases in which judicial rents have been fixed since 1896, the average number of years' purchase is twenty-three. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the circumstances under which the negotiations for sale were carried on, nor have they any information that duress was used against the tenants. If any complaint to that effect should be made to them they would investigate the matter before sanctioning' advances.
    MR. KILBRIDE: What was the amount of arrears due by these tenants when they entered into the agreement?
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information to enable me to reply.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that they are paying twenty-three years' purchase in a congested district?
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to interfere?
    MR. BRYCE: No, Sir, I have not.

    Irish Financial Relations with Great Britain.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the estimated amounts of the true revenue of Ireland in the financial years ending the 31st March, 1895–1900 and 1905 respectively; what would the amounts be if the collections of revenue in Ireland were based on contributions made according to the findings of the Royal Commission on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, viz., that the taxable capacity of Ireland does not exceed one-twentieth of that of Great Britain.
    MR. McKENNA: The estimated amount of Ireland's true contribution to Revenue was in 1894–5, £7,690,000; in 1899–1903, £8,664,500; in 1904–5, £9,753,500; if Ireland's contribution to tax-revenue in those years had been limited to one-twentieth of the tax-revenue contributed by Great Britain, the revenue derived from Ireland would have been in 1894–5, £4,856,000; in 1899–1900, £6,062,500; in 1904–5, £7,132,500. It is necessary however to point out that the expenditure on Irish Services is estimated to have been—
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I never asked that.
    MR. McKENNA, continuing, is estimated to have been in 1894–5, £5,616,000 in 1899–1900, £6,980,000; in 1904–5, £7,567,000. Consequently, if Ireland's contribution had been, reduced to the proportions indicated, the result would have been, not only that Ireland would have contributed nothing to the cost of services of an Imperial character, but that Ireland's revenue would have fallen

    319
    considerably short of the cost of purely Irish Services.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much Australia and Canada contribute for Imperial purposes?
    SIR EDWARD CARSON: Is it proposed to reduce Irish taxation?
    MR. MCKENNA: That Question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Having regard to the very unsatisfactory condition of the financial relations between the two countries, is it proposed by the Government to revise them at a very near period?
    MR. MCKENNA: That Question should not be addressed to me.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us details of the expenditure on Irish Services?
    MR. MCKENNA: The hon. Member can have them if he wishes.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I shall move for a Return.

    Ireland and the Canal Commission.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the working of Irish canals will be included in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Canals.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Certainly, Sir.
    One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

    ECCLESIASTICAL DISORDERS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading upon Friday 4th May, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. J. A. Bright, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Court-hope, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. Timothy Davies, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Doogan, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. C. Duncan, Mr. Frank Edwards, Mr. Everett, Mr. Ferens, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Gill, Sir W. Evans-Gordon, Colonel Harrison-Broadley, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Higham, Sir William Holland, Mr. Idris, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lloyd-George, Colonel Long, Mr. McKillop, Mr. Mansfield, Mr. Meehan, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. O'Mara, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Pike Pease, Mr. Thomas Richards, Mr. Runciman, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Herbert Samuel, Mr. Shackle-ton, Mr. Soames, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. John Talbot, Mr. Austin Taylor, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. H. J. Tennant, Mr. D. A. Thomas, Mr. Verney, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Walrond, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. George White, Mr. Osmond Williams, Colonel Williams, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Wolff, and Mr. Samuel Young.
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Barran, Mr. Billson, Mr. Boland, Mr. Brace, Mr. John Burns, Sir Edward Carson, Mr. Cave, Sir Edward Clark, Mr. Cobbold, Mr. Curtis Craig, Mr. Dickinson, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr.

321
Clement Edwards, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. George Faber (York), Sir George Fardell, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Ellis (Griffith, Mr. Harwood, Sir James Haslam, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. J. M. Henderson, Colonel Ivor Herbert, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Mr. Hodge, Sir J. Jardine, Sir Joseph Leese, Colonel Legge, Mr. R. C. Lehmann, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. J. R. Macdonald, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Massie, Mr. Middlemore, Mr. Lloyd-Morgan, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Nussey, Mr. Pickersgill, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Reckitt, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Mr. S. Roberts, Mr. Soares, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. J. W. Taylor, Mr. Thornton, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Joseph Walton, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. W. L. Williams.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

(SELECTION STANDING COMMITTEES) (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Six Members to be the Chairmen's Panel and to serve as Chairmen of the two Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order No. 49:—Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Sir James Wood-house, Mr. Brynmor Jones, and Mr. Eugene Wason.
Report to he upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (COMMISSIONERS.)
Sir W. BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following fifteen Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners:—Mr. Alexander Black Mr. McCrae, Sir J. Tuke, Mr. Levy, Mr. Weir, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Younger, Mr. Lamont, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. John
322
Dewar, Mr. J. D. Hope, Mr. Wilkie, Mr. R. Bell, Major Anstruther-Gray, and Mr. Ernest Gardner.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Registration of Voters, removing certain restrictions appertaining to the qualification of occupation and lodger voters at Parliamentary and occupation voters at Municipal Elections, and shortening the qualifying period required for all such voters from twelve months to three months," presented by Mr. Edward Dunn; supported by Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Nicholls, and Mr. Athelstan Rendal; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
  SPURIOUS SPORTS BILL.
  "To prohibit the hunting coursing, and shooting of animals, kept in confinement," presented by Mr. Luttrell, supported by Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Shipman, Mr. G. Greenwood, and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL.
  "To amend the law in regard to the qualification of Justices of the Peace and to make changes in respect to recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, presented by Mr. Luttrell; supported by Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr. Robert Price; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  "To provide for the Enfranchisement of leasehold Places of Worship," presented by Mr. Samuel Evans; supported by Mr. Bryn Roberts, Mr. Perks, Mr. Brynmor Jones, and Mr. Illingworth; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
  "To extend certain provisions of the Post Office (Money Orders) Acts to Money Orders transmitted to and from Foreign States and British Protectorates," presented by Mr. Sydney Buxton; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Acts," presented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. Morton, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Cathcart Wason, and Mr. Dalziel; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee of seven Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, be appointed to inquire into the wages and position of the principal classes of Post Office servants (other than the supervising and clerical force, and those in the engineering, stores, and factories departments), and also of the unestablished sub-postmasters. To examine, so far as may be necessary for the purpose of their Report, the conditions of employment of these classes. To report whether, having regard to the conditions and prospects of their employment, and, as far as may be, to the standard rate of wages and the position of other classes of workers, the remuneration they receive is adequate or otherwise."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he desired to move the adjournment of the debate for a reason of some importance to minorities, and he would put that reason very briefly before the House. Hon. Members would remember that some few years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire was opposed to the appointment of a similar Select Committee for many reasons. The right hon. Member declared that hon. Members serving on such a Committee being Members of the House would be subjected to a great deal of annoyance and of undue pressure from Post Office officials. Last session,
324
when the Post Office Vote was brought forward, the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division moved the appointment of a Select Committee and the Government of the day again opposed it on the same grounds. There was a debate and a division, and nearly the whole of the supporters of the then Government voted against the appointment of the Committee. No doubt many of them suffered for it at the general election; they either lost their seats or had their majorities reduced in consequence of the vote. He did not complain on that account, because, after all, if a Member of the House did his duty to the best of his ability he must expect such treatment. But when the Committee was promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General early in the present session, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury came to him and told him that it would be a Committee of five members and asked him to nominate one. He invited some Members of the House to serve on it, but met with the reply that they had voted against the Committee in. the last session and therefore they could not serve upon it during the present session. Under these circumstances he had to look elsewhere, and he examined a division list for the names of Members of his own Party who had voted in favour of the Committee. As a result he nominated the hon. Member for Hoxton, who had been in the House some time arid whose industry, intelligence, and capacity no one could doubt. He was bound to say he was considerably surprised when the Postmaster-General came to him and objected to the hon. Gentleman. These matters had always been dealt with in years past in a most friendly way between the Whips of both sides of the House. Indeed, the only way in which they could carry on this sort of work was through the recognised channels. But he did object to a Cabinet Minister coming to him and saying that the man whom he had nominated was not fit to be put on the Committee. He had occupied the position of Patronage Secretary for three years, and he had had names handed to him by his right hon. friend the present Home Secretary and by hon. Members below the gangway representing other parties, but he had never raised the

325
slightest objection, although he might have been well aware when the names were handed to him that they were not those of Members calculated to accelerate the progress of the particular Bill which the Committee had to consider. He had, however, always recognised the right of minorities to nominate their own men to sit on Select Committees. He wondered what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford would have said if during last session he had refused to accept his nominees on behalf of the Irish Party. He had no doubt he would have been told that he had taken an unwarrantable liberty, and he believed also that the matter would have been brought before the House. Of course it was within the right of the House to reject any Member who might be proposed, and he did not for one moment dispute that right, but he did dispute the right of a Minister with a huge majority behind his back to refuse the demands of recognised Whips. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General why he objected to the hon. Member for Hoxton, and the reply he received was that he wanted a judicial Committee. He himself had always considered that Committees appointed by the House were judicial Committees in the sense that they were impartial, and he did not know what else a judicial Committee was unless it was one which was expected to give judgment in favour of the Department by which it was appointed. He hoped that was not the case in the present instance, but when he saw the right hon. Member, having rejected his nomination, suddenly approach hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House and ask them to serve on the Committee he must say it astonished him. He did not make any charge against the right hon. Gentlemen personally, but he must say it was not according to custom, and was altogether outside the ordinary rules of the House. Indeed, he would ask whether a Committee appointed in such a way, instead of having been appointed through the ordinary channels—whether a Committee appointed by the direct interference of the Minister of a Department—would not rest under some suspicion? The right hon. Gentleman's action really reminded him of Balak. He thought the
326
right hon. Gentleman must have wanted the Committee to prophesy good concerning his Department and not evil. Well, after that they apparently came to a deadlock and no one was nominated. But one day he happened to be in the House and he espied the right hon. Gentleman standing at the table talking to the clerk and immediately afterwards he asked the clerk what the right hon. Gentleman had handed him. He found that he had put down the Motion which now stood upon the Paper. Of course the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly within his right in doing such a thing, but it was not in accordance with custom. He should have informed him of his proposed change of procedure, but he had never said the least word to him on the subject until the previous day, when he asked him what he was going to do in regard to it. He was as anxious as anyone could be to make things work as smoothly as possible, and, so far as his right hon. friend the present Patronage Secretary to the Treasury was concerned, there had been no trouble whatever. But what was the result of all that had occurred? They now had a Motion down to the effect that the Committee of Selection should appoint the Committee. No doubt the Committee of Selection would use their discretion to the best of their ability, but it was quite possible that they might find great difficulty in putting on the Committee Unionist Members who had given no pledge on the subject to be inquired into. He objected to what had taken place on three grounds. He thought, in the first place, that an undeserved slur had been cast upon the right hon. Member for Hoxton; in the second place, there had been an interference with the custom of the House in this matter; and in the third place, he thought it would be found, if the Committee were to be appointed by the Committee of Selection, that Members who would naturally wish not to serve would be induced to do so because they would not like to refuse the request of the Committee of Selection. He felt it his duty to make this protest, not simply on behalf of his own Party, but on behalf of all minorities in the House. He did not believe that minorities should be at the mercy of any such action, on the part of a

327
Government which had an overwhelming majority in the lobbies, and who, consequently, would have a large majority on all Committees. He wished to retain the practice under which minorities in the past had always nominated their own men, freely and independently—and he did not think a Government which had a great numerical majority in the lobbies and great numerical superiority in all Committees should object to their nominating their own Members of a Committee. He was quite prepared to leave himself and his case to the fair judgment of the House and begged to move accordingly.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said his first words would be those of ample apology to the right hon. Member who had just spoken if in any respect he had seemed to interfere with the functions which he was so admirably performing. He was sure, in regard to the matter, that there had been a great misunderstanding, but he was also prepared to take the whole of the blame for it upon himself. He admitted that in all his dealings with the right hon. Gentleman he had been met with the utmost possible courtesy and everything had been absolutely straightforward. As he had already said, as far as he was concerned, there had been a misunderstanding with regard to the matter, and he would tell the House frankly how the question stood. He had never gathered from his conversation with the right hon. Gentleman that he was opposed to the appointment of the Committee, and he did not think it was necessary for him to go into the history of that question. The Government, having come to the conclusion that it was desirable that such a Committee should be appointed, a statement to that effect was made to the House early in the session, and it then became necessary for him to consider what form such Committee should take. He had felt very strongly indeed that it was essential, in view of the fact that the Committee would have to deal with difficult and delicate questions, thatitshould, as far as possible, be an absolutely impartial, independent, and judicial Committee.
328
Therefore he suggested to the hon. Member the Patronage Secretary, when he was discussing the matter, that the Committee should consist of five members, and he certainly thought that a Committee of that size would commend itself to the House as a Committee likely, under the circumstances, to carry out its work with some rapidity and some satisfaction to the House as a whole. After that he discussed the matter with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he would not deny the point he was now about to put. He certainly understood in talking the matter over with him, not in any official sense, that he quite agreed with the conclusions at which he had arrived with regard to the character of the Committee. He ventured to ask the right hon. Member if he would consider the matter and nominate someone on his side to act. The promise was given to consider it, and in due time the right hon. Member told him that he was proposing the nomination of the hon. Member for Hoxton as a member of the Committee. He told the right hon. Member that as it was to be a a very small Committee it was essential that it should be an impartial Committee, and he certainly, in the course of conversation, expressed to the right hon. Member his objection to the appointment of the Member for Hoxton—not on any personal grounds, but because he had in the past taken very considerable interest in the question, and had voted against the Unionist Party in the last session of Parliament with regard to it. Therefore the position was this: the Committee being a small one had to be an impartial Committee, and whilst he had no objection to the personal capacity of the hon. Member suggested he did feel to a certain extent that he was a prejudiced party with regard to this particular matter, and he ventured to point that out to the right hon. Member. The right hon. Member told him that he had approached some other hon. Member behind him, but had been unable to find anyone willing to serve on the Committee, and, as he also gathered, if he could induce anyone to serve he would not press the nomination of the hon. Member for Hoxton. He certainly had never looked at the proposal to appoint the hon. Member for Hoxton as being official; had he done so he would have at once accepted the nomination, and not taken any further action. It

329
was clear he could not have understood that from the fact that he had approached one or two Members on the other side of the House to see if they would serve, as he certainly understood from his right hon. friend—and he was prepared to take all the blame of misunderstanding upon himself—that if any other hon. Member expressed willingness to serve he was prepared to consider his appointment. He repeated that if he had done anything to which the right hon. Member took exception he was sorry, for he felt as strongly as any Member of the House the absolute importance of maintaining those friendly relations between the Whips which had always existed, and he would have been the last willingly to have done anything to weaken the friendly action between the two sides. But the proposal that a small Committee should be nominated by the House having broken down—
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says the proposal that a small Selection Committee should be nominated by the House had broken down. I ask why did it break down, and how?
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it broke down in the sense that there was no suggestion forthcoming of an alternative nomination to that of the hon. Member for Hoxton. There seemed to be, therefore, two alternatives before the House—either to have the Committee nominated by the House and consequently a partisan Committee, or else to have the question referred to the Committee of Selection. Being anxious that the matter should be treated in no sense as a Party question, he ventured to suggest that the nomination of the Committee should be left to the Selection Committee. He could assure the House that if he had done anything to cause this misunderstanding he very much regretted it. Any action he had taken in regard to the matter had been dictated by his very strong desire as Postmaster-General to have the grievance of the employees of the Department fully inquired into by a strong and impartial Committee.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he thought he might, on behalf of those associated with him, at once accept the right hon. Member's assurance that
330
there had been no intention on his part to go behind his right hon. friend the Member for the Wellington division in dealing with the Members of the Opposition. As far as any personal question was concerned, the expressions of the right hon. Gentleman were quite sufficient to dispose of it, and he did not think they need say another word on the subject. But there was a much more important matter in regard to which he proposed to make an appeal to the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had had the advantage of hearing the very moderate statement of his right hon. friend opposite, and was now in possession of the facts. The position was this: the Government had officially declared their intention to appoint a Select Committee, and, having invited the right hon. Member for the Wellington division to name an hon. Member to serve on that Committee, they had, in defiance of what he believed to be the unbroken practice of Parliament, objected to the hon. Member who was chosen by his right hon. friend to represent the Unionist Party. The Prime Minister shook his head at that, but the fact was borne out by the statement of the Postmaster-General, who said that the proposal for a Select Committee of five members had broken down because the Member for Hoxton had been nominated.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member, but what I meant to convey was that the nomination of the hon. Member for Hoxton altered the conplexion of the Committee I desired to set up.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that of course it was not suggested that the objection arose out of anything personal to the hon. Member for Hoxton, but his point was that it was not within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to object; he should have conformed to the well-considered practice of the House in dealing with the appointment of Committees. It was not to be thought that the majority for the time being with its proportionate majority on Committees should be allowed to dictate to the minority in the House which Member from among its limited numbers should be allowed to serve upon Select Committees. There might have been arguments put forward in favour

331
of having a Committee of that kind appointed by the Committee of Selection rather than by a Committee of the House, and if the Government had in the first place come to the House and suggested that a Committee should be selected by the House to inquire into postal grievances, he did not think there would have been any objection raised to such a course. But he did object to the invidious procedure adopted by the Postmaster-General. He had said that the objection was not a personal one, but that made the matter even graver. He could remember a case where objection had been made to Members serving on Committees on the ground that they had some connection with, or interest in, the matter to be dealt with, but he could never remember any case having occurred in his experience where objection was taken to an hon. Member after he had been invited to serve on a Committee simply because of public action he had taken as a Member of the House. It destroyed the liberty of the minority in this House and it destroyed the whole system on which these Committees had been appointed. He said that on the general principle. When he came to the particular objection urged against his hon. friend he must say that he thought it fell from—he would not say the sublime, but from the serious to the ridiculous. What was the reason alleged by the right hon. Gentleman why his hon. friend the Member for Hoxton was not fit to serve on a Committee of this kind? It was that in the last Parliament, in spite of Lord Stanley and the appeal that was made to him, he, in the discharge of his public duty, voted against the Government and in favour of the Committee. Absolutely! The only objection which the right hon. Gentleman alleged against the appointment of his hon. friend was that he was in favour of the Committee on which they had nominated this gentleman. For himself he did not know exactly what the practice of the Committee of Selection was. Were they to ask him to serve on a Committee of this kind he should beg to be excused, on the ground that, acting with every sense of responsibility, he had repeatedly declared as a Minister in this House that he thought the appointment of such a Committee was inadvisable. But if hon. Members who had voted for the Com-
332
mittee were thereby disqualified, who was going to serve? Were hon. Members who voted against the appointment of the Committee disqualified? If an hon. Member who voted in favour of the appointment of the Committee was disqualified what was to happen to gentlemen who were candidates at the recent election and who declared themselves in favour of or against the Committee? On the principle of the Postmaster-General there was not a single Member of the House elegible to serve on the Committee if it should ever be appointed. He thought the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General would feel that the ground of objection to his hon. friend was untenable. He believed it was the unbroken tradition of this House in the matter of these Committees to invite the Opposition—in this case the Unionist Opposition—to nominate one representative to whom they were entitled according to the ordinary practice of the House. His right hon. friend nominated a gentleman who was unexceptionable, and because the Postmaster-General objected to the nomination he now sought to change the method of procedure. On the ground of adherence to practice, and on the ground of good feeling and smooth running in the discharge of the duties of the House, he asked the Government to withdraw the Motion before the House and revert to their original proposal
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)said he entirely agreed with two propositions that had been laid down by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite who had spoken. The first was that there ought to be no disposition to treat with any harshness or unfairness a minority in this House, and, while they had the highest authority in the House appointed with the special duty of looking after the rights of minorities, he ventured to say that there was another person in the House whose duty it also was to see that minorities were not unfairly dealt with, although they might often think that they were unfairly dealt with even by him, and that was the occupier of the position in which he stood. Therefore, he was most anxious that there should be no ground whatever for thinking

333
that there had been any undue interference with the rights of minorities. Undoubtedly this was a very difficult Committee to form. There was a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire had said as to the fears that were entertained in many quarters of the effect on the Committee if appointed under pressure and insistence, and the retractive effect of old promises extracted in moments of agony from candidates at the general election. He thought they could understand that the nomination of members to serve on that Committee was a more delicate and more important matter than it would ordinarily be. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends were entitled to one member on the Committee, if it was to be composed of only five members. He understood that the Postmaster-General met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division with the view of discussing, or, at any rate, getting into relationship on the point as to who that one member should be. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had asked several members of the Party, and that they had all declined on the ground that they had committed themselves on the subject last year. The right hon. Gentleman thought he was securing the services of a very competent Member when he suggested the hon. Member for Hoxton who had voted the other way. The very fact that so many members who had voted the other way thought it right in justice to themselves not to take part in the Committee showed how delicate a matter the nomination of the members of the Committee was. The conversation, however, was a private and friendly one. His right hon. friend the Postmaster-General had assured him—he might be mistaken—that he saw in it no signs of a formal nomination, and that it was merely a discussion between them, eliciting the suggestion that the hon. Member for Hoxton should fill this place. If it had been a formal nomination then the Government would have had nothing to do but to accept the nomination of the right hon. Gentleman and the House would have accepted that formal nomination. But the Postmaster-General viewed
334
it in the light of an informal discussion of the matter, and this disclosed to him what he thought was pretty evident from the first that the formation of a Committee to deal with such a subject as this—a Committee of only five members—by the House by the ordinary process was a very difficult matter. If it were a Committee of fifteen or seventeen members they could put on from either side of the House one or two members who took opposite views on the subject, but with the restricted size of the Committee they were to have only one member who had committed himself as strongly as any Member of the House could do by a vote.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the objection of the Postmaster-General to his hon. friend was that he had voted in favour of the appointment of a Committee; and that he considered him unfit to act.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the hon. Member for Hoxton had also taken an interest in the question. He did not think the hon. Member would get up and say that he had a perfectly blank mind on the subject and that he had no settled convictions on it. It was then that his right hon. friend fell back upon the course that ought to have been taken at first, namely, that of referring the matter to the Committee of Selection. While he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire as to the necessity of guarding the rights of minorities, he disagreed with him in regard to another matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the appointment of these Committees they should follow the old lines and let it be done by friendly communication between the Whips on both sides, and that no other consideration should come into play. He entirely disagreed with that. This difficulty having arisen and presented itself, he thought his right hon. friend was right in shifting his ground and proposing that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Selection. That would be a much better course than appointing a large Committee of the size and quality that was usually dealt with by the two sides of the House. There was no intention on the part of his right hon. friend of interfering with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or of

335
casting any slur on the hon. Member for Hoxton, or of departing in any way from the old practice. That being so, he himself thought the best thing the House could do was to agree that the Committee of Selection should propose seven members to serve on this important Committee. The House of Commons had always had the most perfect confidence in the Committee of Selection.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he belonged to a party which was in a permanent minority in this House, and, that being so, the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench was one in which they were bound to take a certain amount of interest. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was for the minority to chose its representative and not the majority. It would be a very dangerous thing indeed if the Government of the day were allowed to pick and choose the representatives of the minority on such Committees; and if the Government had put the action of the Postmaster-General on that ground he would have opposed it. But by the decision which had been arrived at the Postmaster-General had, if he might say so, done the right thing in a somewhat clumsy way. He did not think that anyone? could blame the right hon. Gentleman in being most careful of the manner in which the Members of this Committee, which had such a momentous question to discuss, were selected. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench that he should be satisfied with the statement of the Government, with which he agreed, for there was no doubt that the Committee of Selection would make no choice except on the highest considerations for the public serivce.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid he would support the Resolution of the right hon. Member for the Wellington Division, not for the reason the right hon. Gentleman had given, but for other reasons. The time had arrived when all these questions of posts, salaries, and retiring allowances should be removed from the purview of the House of Commons, and that a Civil Service Board should be appointed to deal with
336
them, consisting of the highest gentlemen in the land, who would be irremovable and who would be as much above Parliament as the judges of the country, as was the case in Australia.
MR. SPEAKER: That question does not arise on this Motion.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONsaid he thought that the action of the Postmaster-General in referring this matter to a Select Committee would not settle it and that it would burden the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a debt which he could not properly meet.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question before the House.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had adopted a very unusual course in objecting to the nomination of the hon. Member for Hoxton by the Opposition to serve on this Select Committee, and if persisted in it would create a precedent.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It has already been said by me and by my right hon. friend that if it had been thought that this was a nomination, explicitly and formally made by the right hon. and gallant Member, not a word would have been said. It would have been very improper to do so.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it had been already stated by several Gentlemen from the Front Opposition Bench that the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton was put forward as a nomination. That nomination had been objected to by the right hon. the Postmaster-General, and if he persisted in that objection it would constitute a new precedent and the whole procedure of the House as to the constitution of Select Committees would be altered. He had had long experience in the House, and it seemed to him that where an important Committee was to be appointed to inquire into a public question of this importance, they should not refer its composition to the Committee of Selection. He was strongly against that

337
Committee and thought that the House was the proper tribunal to appoint such a Select Committee. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to establish a new precedent, but, having been assured by Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench that they did intend to put forward the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton, to put that hon. Gentleman on the Committee.
SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid it seemed to be a pity to go to a division on a matter on which both sides of the House were agreed. The Prime Minister had said that this was not to be drawn into a precedent; but if not, why was it to happen at all? So far as he could see, there was no reason why, with the assent of the whole House, the proper course should not be taken. It was admitted that there had been a misunderstanding, a misapprehension. Let that misapprehension pass away and let the true course of the House, sanctioned by all precedents and acknowledged by the Prime Minister to be the true, regular and useful course in the conduct of public business, be taken; and let them appoint a Committee of five, as originally proposed, accepting, as it was now agreed that it ought to have been accepted, the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton as the representative
of the Opposition side of the House. If that were done this difficulty would disappear, and there would disappear, and there would be no reason for going to a division on the Motion for adjournment. He believed that the Prime Minister would recognize the strength of the feeling which existed on the Opposition side of the House in regard to this matter. It might be that they were in a small minority and that they were in the power of the majority; but this matter was far too important to be allowed to pass without such a protest as was contained in the Motion for the adjournment and the further protest which the minority would be compelled to make if what they considered to be an arbitrary proceeding on the part of the majority of the House were insisted on in refusing to accept the hon. Member for Hoxton when nominated from the Opposition side of the House. He hoped the Prime Minister would spare the House an unnecessary division and subsequent debate by recurring tot the proposal which the Government originally made, and that that proposal would be carried through with the entire consent of both sides of the House.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 311. (Division List No. 4.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Hills, J. W.

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Jenkins, J.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Kelly, George D.

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col W.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dixon Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham.)

Barnes, G. N.

Du Cros, Harvey

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Barrie. H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Liddell, Henry

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lock wood Rt. Hn. Lt-Col. A. R.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fell, Arthur

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fletcher, J. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Forster, Henry William

Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

Campbell, J H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gill, A. H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam

O'Grady, J.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Grayesend)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hardie, JKeir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cecil Lord JP Joicey-(Stamf rd

Hardie Laurence (KentAshford

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darl'gt'n),

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Percy, Earl

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A (Worc

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Clarke, Sir Edward (City Lond'n

Helmsley, Viscount

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

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

Hervey, FWF (Bury S. Edm'ds

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Starkey, John R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

Roberts, S (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Summerbell, T.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

Turnour, Viscount

Younger, George

Seddon, J.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Shackleton, David James

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Walsh, Stephen

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

Wardle, George J.

NOES.

Abrabam, William (Cork, N. E.)

Collins, Sir Wm. J (S. Pancras W

Halpin, J.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hammond, John

Agnew, George William

Cooper, G. J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Alden, Percy

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hart-Davies, T.

Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

Cox, Harold

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Armitage, R.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Harwood, George

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cremer, William Randal

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry

Crombie, John William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cullinan, J.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hedges, A. Paget

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Delany, William

Henry, Charles S.

Barnard, E. B.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Herbert. Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Higham, John Sharp

Beale, W. P.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Beauchamp E.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Beaumqnt, Hubert (Eastbourne

Donelan, Captain A.

Hogan, Michael

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Duckworth, James

Hooper, A. G.

Bell, Richard

Duffy, William J.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Benn, John Williams (Dev'np'rt

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Howard, Hon. Geoff'rey

Benn. W. (T'w'r Hamlets S. Geo.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Bennett, E. N.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Idris, T. H. W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)

Elibank, Master of

Jacoby, James Alfred

Bethell,T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jardine, Sir J.

Billson, Alfred

Erskine, David C.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Essex, R. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Boland, John

Evans, Samuel T.

Jones, William (Canarvonshire

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Joyce, Michael

Bowerman, C. W.

Farrell, James Patrick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brace, William

Fenwick, Charles

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Branch, James

Ferens, T. R.

Kilbride, Denis

Brigg, John

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Bright, J. A.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Brodie, H. C.

Findlay, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

Brooke, Stop ford

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Lambert, George

Burke, E. Haviland

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamont, Norman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller, J. M. F.

Law, Hugh Alexander

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lea,Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras,E.

Buxton,Rt Hon Sydney Charles

Gardner, Col. A.(Herefordsh. S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Byles, William Pollard

Gilhooly, James

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Cairns, Thomas

Ginnell, L.

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Caldwell, James

Gladstone Rt Hon Herbert John

Lewis, John Herbert

Cameron, Robert

Glendinning, R. G.

Lloyd-George, Rt, Hon. David

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Glover, Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lundon, W.

Causton, Rt Hn Richard Knight

Gooch, George Peabody

Luttrell, Hugh Courtenay

Cawley, Frederick

Grant, Corrie

Lynch, H. B.

Chance, Frederick William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J.M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Channing, Francis Allston

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Maclean, Donald

Cheetham, John Frederick

Grove, Archibald

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cherry, R. R.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mac Neil, John Gordon Swift

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gulland, John W.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Clough, W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mac Veigh,Charles (Donegal,E.

Coats,Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Callum, John M.

Cogan, Denis J.

Hall, Frederick,

M'Crae, George

340

341

M'Kenna, Reginald

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Strachey, Sir Edward

M'Killop, W.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sullivan, Donal

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

Pollard, Dr.

Sutherland, J. E.

M'Micking, Major G.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Maddison, Frederick

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Rainy, A. Rolland

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Marks, G, Croydon (Launceston

Raphael, Herbert H.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Marnham, F. J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tomkinson, James

Massie, J,

Rendall, Athelstan

Toulmin, George

Masterman C. F. G.

Renton, Major Leslie

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Meehan, Patrick A.

Richardson, A.

Vivian, Henry

Menzies, Walter

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wadsworth, J.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robartes, Hon. T. C. A. (Bodmin

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Molteno, Percy Alfred

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)

Mond, A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walters, John Tudor

Money, L. G. Chiozza-

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

Montagu, E. S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton.

Morton, Alpheus Clephas

Robinson, S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Murphy, John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Myer, Horatio

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Napier, T. B.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rose, Charles Day

Weir, James Galloway

Nicholls, George

Rowlands, J.

Whitbread, Howard

Nolan, Joseph

Runciman, Walter

White, George (Norfolk)

Norman, Henry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Schawnn, Charles D. (Hyde)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Nuttall, Harry

Schawnn, C.E.(Manch'ster, N.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Williamson, A.(Elginand Nairn

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Connor, James, (Wicklow, W.

Seely, Major J. B.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.

O'Doherty, Philip

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Winfrey, R.

O'Dowd, John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersfid

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Young, Samuel

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Soares, Ernest J.

O'Shee, James John

Spicer, Albert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Perks, Robert William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Question put and agreed to.

SIR FRANCIS LOWEmoved to omit the word "seven" in line 1, in order to insert the word "five." He said he desired to move this Amendment in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General an opportunity to revert to his original proposition that there should be five Members on this Committee and of reconsidering the decision at which he had arrived not to allow an hon. Gentleman a Member of the Unionist Party to serve on the Committee. No good reason bad been given for the opposition to the appointment of the hon. Member for Hoxton, who was in every way a most suitable Member to serve on the Committee and none the less so because he had voted with bon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of a Committee of inquiry when the appointment of such a Committee was proposed in the late Parliament. He did not see why his hon. friend should
342
be disqualified from sitting on this Committee because he favoured an inquiry into the alleged grievances of the Post Office employes. In his view it was desirable that there should be some one on the Committee who was favourable to the position of the employes concerned. He begged to move.
SIR W. EVANS GORDON, in seconding the Amendment, said that in the course of the debate which preceded the division the. Prime Minister told the House that had the Postmaster-General realised or known that the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton had been formally handed in to serve on this Committee no objection would have been taken to the name but it would have been at once accepted. The late Patronage Secretary to the Treasury had told the House that a formal nomination had been made and

343
if all the formalities had been gone through he could not understand on what possible ground the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hoxton had been objected to on this occasion. The general feeling on the Unionist side of the House was that the grounds given by the right hon. Gentleman were the thinnest that could possibly be alleged. The hon. Member for Hoxton had voted for this very Committee for years, and if that was a disqualification for serving upon it then all he could say was that that was a disqualification from which he in conjunction with all Members on the Liberal side of the House suffered who were Members of the last Parliament.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'seven' in line 1 in order to insert the word 'five.'"—(Sir Francis Lowe.)
Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was Unable to accept the Amendment. After careful consideration he had come to the conclusion that it was better to have a larger Committee than five and to give the Committee of Selection the choice of the Members who were to sit upon it. If the Committee was composed of seven, two Members of the Party opposite would in all probability be appointed, and that ought to be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. The Committee of Selection was representative of the House, and so far as he was concerned he had never heard of the decisions of that body being objected to in any quarter. He thought it was quite safe to leave the selection of this Committee in their hands. The action he had taken of which complaint had been made was due to a misunderstanding between himself and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought the conversations he had with the right hon. Gentleman were not official, but of a private character in regard to what had best be done. He had never said a word against the hon. Member for Hoxton except on the ground that the hon. Gentleman had taken a very great interest in this question, and that while that
344
Would not disqualify him from serving on a large Committee, or for that matter upon a small one, the size of the Committee did make a considerable difference I in these matters. He hoped the House would agree to a Committee of seven, which upon reconsideration he considered to be a better number than five.
LORD BALCARRESadmitted that the House had no fear that the Committee of Selection would fail to respect the rights of minorities, but that was not the point which they had to consider. What they had to consider was very different. The point had been stated in its most bald terms by the Prime Minister who, speaking for himself and the Government upon the objections to the hon. Member for Hoxton, said the hon. Member was not unbiassed in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman further said they wished to see a Committee which was free from any suspicion of prejudice and partiality, and therefore in his own words accused the hon. Member for Hoxton of being not free from the suspicion of partiality. The gravamen of the charge against the hon. Gentleman was that in this matter he was not impartial. In the past three sessions of the late? Parliament this question of appointing a Select Committee to deal with the grievances of post office employees had been brought before the House. In the present Unionist Party there was only one Member who voted consistently in support of the complete claims of the postmen in that respect, and that was his hon. friend, and the only thing that could be alleged against the hon. Member was that he was too favourable to the claims of the postmen. That was the whole reason why the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General had to exercise his veto in this matter. But if one hon. Member was disqualified on that ground the same objection would apply to all the members, of the Liberal Party who were Members of the last Parliament, because they stood on precisely the same footing as the hon. Member. As regards those hon. Gentlemen who had entered Parliament for the first time, he thought he was fairly accurate when he said that they had given pretty specific pledges upon this matter to those who had sent them to

345
the House. The right hon. Member had said the nomination of the hon. Member for Hoxton was not official, but unfortunately for him the right hon. Gentleman made the suggestion in a way so formal that he ventured to say so formal a nomination had never been made before. It was communicated upon paper, and it had never been withdrawn, and while that official document was in the pocket of the Postmaster-General that right hon. Gentleman was hanging about behind Mr. Speaker's chair asking Unionist Members to sit upon this Committee because he did not take the nomination of the Unionist Party. The position of the Whips, who had been designated as "Channels of communication between the Parties in the House "had not been treated with sufficient courtesy and care by the Postmaster-General. Members of the Unionist Party had complained that a member of the Government had asked them to join Committees which they had constantly opposed during the past five years. He said most distinctly that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have had more regard to the Patronage Secretary and still more to other hon. Gentlemen who, like himself, were the channels of communication between small, it might be almost insignificant, minorities and the very large majority wielded by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He was not going into the merits of this particular Amendment beyond saying that the Prime Minister had obviously made a grave mistake in tactics in not in the first place accepting the request of the Opposition to postpone the consideration of this subject until they could consider it in all its bearings. The Opposition were now going to be voted down by a gigantic majority, but the findings of the Committee, whatever they were, would be discounted in advance. The postal servants involved would have absolutely no confidence in the findings of a Committee in regard to the nomination of which the Postmaster-General, their official superior, had been criticised in so markedly unfriendly a spirit; and the very fact that he had publicly vetoed the appointment of an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches for the sole reason—the avowed reason—
346
that that hon. Member was too favourable to the postmen's claim, would, in his opinion, make the findings absolutely worthless. Whether they nominated this Committee of five or seven members, whether they put the responsibility upon the Committee of Selection or retained to the House the appointment of the Committee, the findings would be worthless, owing to the unwarrantable action of the Postmaster-General in vetoing the appointment of his hon. friend.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY,)said he merely wanted to say one word with reference to the suggestion of the noble Lord that the Postmaster-General had treated the Whips' office with scant courtesy. He knew throughout the whole of the negotiations that had taken place what was going on, and he could assure the House that the matter had been unduly magnified, and that it was assuming larger proportions than it ever had any right to reach. There seemed to be an idea that the Postmaster-General had acted in a somewhat high handed manner, that he had endeavoured to alter the ordinary procedure with regard to these Committees, and that he had taken advice of the numerical majority of the Government's supporters. He could assure the House that that was not the case. So far as he himself was concerned, and if the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Wellington Division of Somerset were present he would agree, they had endeavoured not only not to insist upon every advantage that they had a right to claim, recognising their large majority in the House, but they had endeavoured not to press that advantage unduly. At the very first opportunity he had of settling the numerical proportions of the Committees he informed the right hon. Baronet that they did not intend to press their advantage unduly, and, as a matter of fact, they agreed to give the Opposition 4 per cent, more representation on Select Committees than they were entitled to. They had a right to 23 per cent, and were getting 27 per cent.
AN HON. MEMBERasked whether, as the point was one of very great importance, the hon. Gentleman would state what constituted an official nomination.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that an official nomination came from one Whip to another, generally in writing, and was accepted by the Whip receiving that nomination. There was no nomination whatever of that kind with regard to the hon. Member for Hoxton, but only the suggestion that perhaps he was a good Member to be appointed. There was no public veto, or any slur on the capacity of the hon. Member. If there had been a direct representation he should have at once said that the nomination of the Opposition must be immediately accepted, and they had no right to demur to it; but no such representation was made.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid there was a strong feeling on the Opposition side of the House with regard to this question. All who had listened to the debate must have come to the conclusion that there undoubtedly was a misunderstanding, but it was a matter of such considerable importance that he would make one further appeal to the Leader of the House, who had stated that he did not wish to set up a precedent in regard to this matter. The Postmaster-General had made a remark to the same effect. They fully recognised and wished to adhere to the old established rule of the House, that where a Committee was proposed to be set up there should be negotiations between official sources as to who should be appointed on the Committee. If the present point were not cleared up satisfactorily it might be quoted as a precedent at some future time, and he therefore most earnestly asked the Leader of the House once more to consider this question and to be true to the words he had used in his speech that he did not wish to establish a precedent. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to establish that precedent.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he must confess that
348
having listened to the debate from the commencement he was still at a loss to know why the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton was not accepted by the Postmaster-General, and he believed they had not yet got at the real reason. He said nothing whatever as regarded the Patronage Secretary. He was told that the Opposition Whips in every way recognised the chivalry and the manner in which the hon. Gentleman met the minority, but unfortunately he apparently allowed this matter to pass out of his hands, and so they were in the present position. As he understood the Postmaster General the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton—at any rate, he did accept it. If the right hon. Gentleman liked to draw a distinction between accepting and not accepting he was quite welcome to do so. Why was the hon. Member not accepted? Because apparently he had given a vote in this House a particular way, or because he had identified himself with a particular side of the question. Yes, but the day after the Postmaster-General went to another member of the Opposition who had given a vote a particular way—but the other way—and who had identified himself with a particular side of the question—but with the other side of the question. The Postmaster-General must admit one of two things—either that he looked upon the possession of views on a particular side as a disqualification, or he thought that he had a right to form an objection to a particular name which was suggested by the Opposition Whip. Therefore, he repeated that they had not yet got the real reason why the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton was not accepted. He put this question to the Postmaster-General: how did he reconcile his asking a Member upon the Opposition side who was opposed to the Committee, and who had identified himself with the Opposition, to join the Committee, whereas he rejected, or did not accept, the name of one who did not oppose, and who had identified himself with the question? If it were not a question of the particular views or the particular action of the hon. Member, the House had a right to ask what was the reason for the rejection of the hon. Member for Hoxton.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that before the question was put he wished to state that the Postmaster-General asked him to nominate a member of the Committee and he gave him the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton. The right hon. Gentleman came to his room twice and asked him to find somebody else and he told him that he could not find anybody else.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was quite true that the name suggested was that of the hon. Member for Hoxton. It must be quite clear to the House that under the circumstances he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, because he took the discussion as being of a private nature and not of an official character as if the right hon. Gentleman had said that the hon. Member for Hoxton was his nomination and he would suggest no other. He again apologised for the misunderstanding.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that they understood how the misunderstanding arose, and his right hon. friend did not wish to charge the Postmaster-General with doing anything unbecoming a Minister in his position. There was one obvious lesson to be drawn from the debate, namely, that the arrangement of these Committees should be left to the Patronage Secretary, and that Cabinet Ministers should not interfere to assist or obstruct the Whips in the very efficient discharge of their duties. He wished to repeat his appeal to the Prime Minister. Surely there never was a more extraordinary position than that in which the House was now placed. He might have occasion later in the debate on another question to say something more about the proposal to appoint this Committee, but he would confine himself for the moment strictly to what had passed in the discussion. The Prime Minister admitted that a misunderstanding had arisen, that the Postmaster-General was not aware that an official nomination had been made, and that if he had been aware that an official nomination had been made it would have been improper for him to have objected to it, and the Committee as orignially proposed would have been appointed with the hon. Member for Hoxton as one
350
of its members. There was no dispute that the misunderstanding was on the part of the Postmaster-General and not on the part of his right hon. friend who represented the Opposition side of the House. Before the Postmaster-General altered the form of his notice his right hon. friend had officially nominated in writing in the most formal way the hon. Member for Hoxton. There was no longer any dispute between the two Front Benches as to the position of the Patronage Secretary in the matter.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYNo communication whatever came to me.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I certainly told the hon. Member, if I did not state it in writing.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: No communication with regard to the setting up of this Committee was entered into between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, and I received no letter from the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I am quite certain that I handed in the name in writing.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: Not to me.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Post Office seemed to be in default in more ways than one. He was prepared to rest his case on the statement made by the Prime Minister, who said that there had been a misunderstanding and that if he had understood that an official nomination had been made he would not have allowed it to be altered or the form of the Committee to be changed. His hon. and learned friend the Member for the City of London had appealed to the Prime Minister to undo this misunderstanding, and it was quite within his power to do so; by a stroke of the pen he could remove this misunderstanding and restore the Motion to its original form, thus relieving the Opposition and others of the feeling that they were being ill-used in violation of the practice of the House. He appealed to the Prime Minister, as the guardian

351
of the rights of the House, to undo the decision which had given rise to the misunderstanding and to restore them to the position in which they would have been if that misunderstanding had not arisen.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid that arising out of the debate were one or two important matters which should be nailed down. First of all he referred to the remarkable friendship displayed by the Opposition for the postman this session as compared with last session. As one who had taken some little part in this controversy he knew the postmen would be very grateful for their support and he personally was also grateful for that support. What to his mind was more important than the decision that a Member's personal opinion on any matter should not be a bar to his selection to serve on a Committee was the declaration regarding minorities. He was one of a minority of about thirty in the House and he felt grateful at being told that in future the selection by a minority of any Member to serve on a Committee would be accepted by the Government. That position had been clearly stated this afternoon, for the Prime Minister had said that if he had known the Member for Hoxton was officially nominated there would have been no objection to his nomination. He rather favoured the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for the City of London. Let them consider this matter de novo. If the Government persisted in their present attitude it would be construed outside that a certain hon. Member had been refused nomination on this Committee because of his expressed opinions in past Parliaments. He felt that that was a very serious thing with which to start an important Committee of inquiry, and it would not tend to a satisfactory settlement of this much debated question. If it was intended that this Committee should be appointed by the Selection Committee he held that the Members should be increased to nine so that all Parties in the House could be represented. Under the present arrangement there was only one representative from the Unionist Opposition and the Labour party was entirely ignored.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he wished to say a word or two from the point of view of the postmen. The hon. Member for Hoxton and himself were two of those who in the last Parliament took a very active part on behalf of the postmen. His position was that if it went forth to these men for whom they had tried to do something, and whose part they had taken for years, that when this Committee was being appointed an hon. Member was to be disqualified because he had expressed views favourable to the claims of the postmen, it would be a most unfortunate incident. It would discount the advantages of the Committee and practically make it useless for the purpose of settling the discontent. For the last twenty years there had been seething discontent amongst a large body of men and women employed by the Post Office, and the Government had at last conceded the demand for a Committee of the House by this body of citizens. Therefore, if that Committee was to be appointed, it should be one in which the public department concerned and the service would have some reasonable confidence. They could not have confidence in a Committee if prejudice and suspicion were to be introduced, and there should be no interference with the personality of its members. He had not been able to agree with some of his hon. friends upon this point, for he had consistently advocated the claims of the postmen, and had spoken for them. He thought they were entitled to have this Committee appointed in a proper way, and it should be no bar to anyone's being appointed that he had ever declared himself in favour or against the postmen. He suggested to the Prime Minister that whether the Committee was appointed by the House or by the Committee of Selection, or whether it was to consist of five, seven, or nine members, the hon. Member for Hoxton should be one of that Committee, and that was the only condition that would satisfy those who shared his views upon this subject.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that what was wanted was an inquiry by a Committee appointed in the ordinary way, and not in the

353
unprecedented way now being proposed. He appealed to the Prime Minister to reconsider the position. It would be a bad beginning if this Committee was appointed with so much dissension existing in the House. Would it not be better to appoint a Committee unanimously agreed to by both sides? If it went forth that this Committee had not been appointed by the unanimous wish of the House, it would not possess the confidence of the public. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would even at the last moment re-consider his decision in order that they might come to some agreement upon this question.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he agreed with the hon. Member that it would be most unfortunate if the proceedings of this Committee began with any serious difference of opinion in the House. They had got rid of any slur on the hon. Member for Hoxton; and they had got rid of any quarrel between the two Whips on the two sides of the House. He agreed that the best way of conducting the whole of these proceedings was through the Whips and not through Ministers. What should now be done? He spoke quite frankly when he said that he saw great advantages in a small Committee in a case of this sort, but he thought that if a small Committee were appointed it ought to be appointed by the Committee of Selection. He never heard anything of what had been done in regard to this matter, but if he had heard of it he should have suggested from the very first that the Committee ought not to be large and that it should be left to the Committee of Selection. The duties of the Committee would be almost judicial and almost administrative. Of course, in a preliminary degree they would be duties which were ordinarily undertaken by Members of the Executive, but the final authority must be this House. On that ground they ought to be very careful how they proceeded. He thought the suggestion of his hon friend below the gangway was a good one, namely, that the Committee should be increased to nine. That would give a larger choice and admit of a certain balancing of opinion in this judicial Committee. To let the choice be made by the Committee of
354
Selection would be more in accordance with his individual idea, but on the other hand, if it would satisfy Members of the House who criticised the proposed constitution of the Committee, he would be willing to agree that the Committee should consist of nine Members appointed by the Whips in the ordinary way. There would then be less chance of those little contests of individual Members than there would be in a smaller Committee. He was sure that they all had but one desire in the matter, namely, that, on the one hand, the Committee should be appointed without a prejudice against it, and on the other hand that there should be no prejudice in the minds of the hon. Members themselves. If that would meet the views of the House the Government would be happy to agree to it.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsuggested that the discussion should be adjourned in order that the Committee might be proposed in th usual form.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that general assent would be given to the proposal that there should be a Committee of nine, and that he words "to be nominated by the Committee of Selection" should be omitted.
Amendments proposed and agreed to—
"In line 1, to leave out the word 'seven' and insert the word 'nine'"; and
"In line 2, to leave out the words 'to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
Original Question, as amended, again proposed.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he should like to know from the Postmaster-General why the supervising and clerical force, and those in the engineering stores and factories departments and the sub-postmasters, were to be excluded from the scope of the Committee's inquiries There were many thousands of sub postmasters, and the engineering department was a very important one.

355
There had been grievances in these departments, and when the subject was being inquired into, was there any sense in leaving them out? He thought they should all be included. When it was known that they had grievances it was rather invidious to leave them out. He moved the omission of the words in line 4, "other than the supervising of the clerical force, and those in the engineering stores and factories departments."
Amendment proposed—
"In line 4, to leave out the words 'other than the supervising and clerical force, and those in the engineering, stores and factories departments.'"—(Mr. William Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the hon. Member would find from the notice that the "unestablished sub-postmasters" were included. As to the engineering department it was quite obvious that the Committee, however constituted, would have a very heavy task before it, and it appeared to him that if every rank were included the Committee would not be able to report in a reasonable limit of time. The classes referred to by the hon. Member were in a different position from that of the ordinary postal servants, and though he did not say that their case did not require consideration, he thought it was not suitable to refer it to this particular Committee. As to the other departments, he had already received information of their case from the men, and he hoped to be able to come to some conclusion which would be satisfactory to them.
SIR EDWARD CARSONunderstood that complaints had been made quite as much by those in the departments which the Postmaster-General proposed to omit as by others. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that they had certain grievances that ought to be inquired into. The only reason why he proposed to omit them was that the work of the Committee would be too great if they were included. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman would find that that was a very unsatisfactory statement for the classes he proposed to omit. Did
356
the right hon. Gentleman propose with regard to the other employees of the Post Office to set up a Committee—either a Departmental Committee or a House of Commons Committee? Of course, if he did, that would meet the matter raised by the Amendment of his hon. friend. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have very great difficulty with the servants in the Post Office if for no other reason except that there would be too much work thrown on the Committee he refused to allow their grievances to be inquired into by the Committee proposed to be set up. Certain members of the Party to which he belonged had all through opposed the appointment of a Committee, but he thought if a Committee were to inquire into this matter at all they ought to have a complete inquiry into the whole of the grievances. If they inquired into the grievances of some classes of servants and left out others, the last state of the Post Office would be worse than the first. He hoped that some other answer than that already given would be forthcoming before they voted on the Amendment.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the desirability of the inquiry being thorough. He believed that if all the grievances were gone into, the Post Office employees would be willing to accept the verdict of this Committee as a final solution of the difficulty. If certain classes were left out of the inquiry, it would prevent this very desirable result from being arrived at. He joined in the appeal made to the Postmaster-General to reconsider this question.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTexpressed the hope that the Postmaster-General would accept the Amendment. If the inquiry were entered upon and certain classes left out, there would be nothing but dissatisfaction, They would not be able to understand the reason for their exemption. If the right hon. Gentleman was not able to accept the Amendment, would it not be better to withdraw the Motion altogether and put it down another day after the right hon. Gentleman had had a consultation with the permanent heads of

357
the Department? It was quite evident that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction in all parts of the House with this Motion, and it would be well if the Government could come to an arrangement to which the whole House could agree.
Question put.
A Division was called and when hon. Members had returned to their places to hear the Question again put by Mr. Speaker,
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, sitting in his place with his hat on, said he would accept the Amendment on condition that the words "other than the supervising and clerical force" were inserted afterwards.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that he had waited a considerable time before rising to put the Question, and he was afraid that having once put the Question and ordered the House to be cleared, he could not now put a different Question.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
Ordered, That a Select Committee of nine Members be appointed to inquire into the wages and position of the principal classes of Post Office servants, and also of the unestablished sub-postmasters.
To examine, so far as may be necessary for the purpose of their Report, the conditions of employment of these classes.
To report whether, having regard to the conditions and prospects of their employment, and, as far as may be, to the standard rate of wages and the position of other classes of workers, the remuneration they receive is adequate or otherwise.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
Motion made, and Question proposed' "That three be the quorum."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
SIR FRANCIS LOWEmoved to leave ous "three" in order to insert "five."
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'Three,' and insert the word 'Five.'"—(Sir Francis Lowe.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'Three' stand part of the Question."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that in a Committee of this sort, which would have to sit for a considerable number of days, there should be a quorum of four. He moved accordingly.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEasked, by leave, to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, and agreed to—
"To leave out the word 'Three' and insert the word 'Four.'"—(Mr Sydney Buxton.)
Ordered, That four be the quorum.

NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that the question which he was now about to bring before the House would not excite the keen interest and warm feeling and he hoped would not take so long a time as that which had just been disposed of. The Bill the Second Reading of which he now moved was entirely of a departmental and non-controversial nature. The Bill was, in substance, the same as that which was introduced last year by his predecessor, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire; and he understood that the hon. Members below the gangway opposite approved its main provisions. The present law in regard

359
to the notification of accidents was somewhat complicated. There were different statutes regulating different industries. Accidents on ship-board were covered by the Merchant Shipping Act, and stood on a different footing from those dealt with by the Bill, and were therefore left untouched by it. Accidents on railways had to be reported to the Board of Trade, and if this Bill passed the Board of Trade would modify their regulations in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The measure dealt almost entirely with mines and quarries on the one hand, and with factories and workshops on the other. The present law in regard to mines and quarries was divided into three categories, all of which were reportable to the mines' inspectors. In the first place, there, were fatal accidents; secondly, there were non-fatal accidents which arose from special causes, such as explosions, which occasioned any personal injury whatever to any person employed in or about the mine; and third, accidents which arose from any other cause and gave rise to serious personal injury. No exact definition was given in the Acts in force to the term "serious personal injury." Every mine manager was at liberty to form his own opinion as to what he regarded as serious personal injury. The result was that there was an infinite variety of opinion as to the class of accidents which had to be reported. As a matter of fact, only a very small percentage of accidents which most persons would consider serious, which took place in mines and quarries, ever came to the notice of the mines inspectors. There were now 6,000 accidents reported every year; but it was calculated that if every accident which incapacitated a miner for a fortnight were reported, instead of 6,000 a year there would be 75,000 reported; and if every accident which incapacitated a miner for a week were reported these would amount to 100,000. The fact that only 6,000 were reported showed that the law was seriously deficient and that there was no proper and adequate system of notification of accidents in mines. The effect of this also was that the returns were quite valueless for statistical purposes since the classes of accidents reported as being serious differed from mine to mine and from district to district. Further, a con-
360
scientious mine manager who honestly tried to report every accident that might be reasonably considered to be serious was thereby prejudiced, for his return seemed to show that his mine was more dangerous or that the safety of the miners was less regarded than in the mines of his neighbour who had not been so conscientious in making his accident report. Changes in the methods of the industry made it necessary to add to the category of special causes of accidents which were' to be reported. Be proposed to leave the reporting of fatal accidents in mines in the same position as it now stood, since no defects existed in that regard. As to special causes the House would remember that the law necessitated the reporting of all accidents arising from them, whether the accidents were serious or not. In this, category it was proposed to add accidents caused by electricity, such as electric shock or burn; because such accidents, however slight they might be, might when investigated show defects in the electrical equipment of a mine, which the inspector should be aware of, because they might result in very grave accidents or mining explosions. In the Bill was a clause under which power was given to the Secretary of State to add other special causes as the changed circumstances of the' industry might require. Then the term "serious injury" was more closely defined in the Bill, and, lastly, with regard to mines a completely new class of reportable accidents was established. All accidents which caused any serious personal injury, according to the definition of the Bill, or caused en injury sufficiently serious to incapacitate the miner for a specified length of time ought to be reported in the annual return to the Mines Department. The incapacity which was suggested in the Bill was a period of fourteen days, but that period was inserted in italics, and was only a provisional figure. The Government were by no means wedded to that figure, and if hon. Members regarded that term as too long, he should be very glad to meet them in a sympathetic spirit. He was sure hon. Members would realise that the proposals made by this Bill with regard to the reporting of accidents in mines would mean a very considerable improvement in the law and enable statistics to fulfil

361
far more completely than hitherto the purpose which the House had in view in requiring their collection. With regard to factories and workshops, the present law required all accidents to be reported which fell within one of three categories. First, there were fatal accidents, which must be reported to the inspector and the certifying surgeon. Second, nonfatal accidents from special causes—machinery in motion, hot liquid, molten metal, explosives, and so forth—which were to be reported to the inspector and surgeon, if there was incapacity for five hours in one of the three days following the accident. Thirdly, there were accidents arising from all other causes and which resulted in disablement for five hours in one of three days following the accident, and these were reported to the inspector only, and not also to the certifying surgeon. The defects which had become apparent in the law, as regarded factories and workshops, with regard to special causes—accidents from machinery in motion, molten metal, and the like—were that frequently accidents occurred which at first sight seemed to be slight and trivial but which after a time developed into very serious accidents indeed. These included poisoning injuries and injuries of other kinds, which might not show their effects within three days of the accident. It frequently happened that the factory inspector had no knowledge whatever and was never informed of serious accidents, because their full seriousness had not been displayed within three days after the accident. Then there was this complicated provision as to five hours within one of the three days, which set up an intricate arithmetical problem, which had resulted in continual misunderstandings. This provision had given rise to an immense amount of correspondence between factory inspectors and owners of factories and workshops. As it had given rise to considerable difficulty it had been thought desirable to amend it. Then again electric shocks and burns were omitted from the category of special causes, although they might well come within that category, and. there was no power in the Secretary of State to add other special causes from time to time. They proposed by this
362
Bill to sweep away the provision about five hours in one of three days and to make the accident notifiable if it incapacitated the workman or workwoman for a period of one clear day at any time subsequent to the accident. Then they proposed to add to accidents caused by special causes those which were the result of electric shock or burns, and they gave power to the Secretary of State to add other causes to that category also. The last proposal of the Bill was intended to relieve the Factory Department from the overwhelming burden of entirely useless clerical work which was now cast upon them by the necessity to report, apart from the accidents which occurred from special causes—machinery in motion and so forth—a third class of accident, those arising from any mischance whatever which caused incapacity for a period of five hours. The result was that the factory inspectors were overwhelmed with reports of tens of thousands of trivial accidents which were quite unpreventable by any regulations. In 1895 there were 10,000 accidents reported, in 1900,68,000, and in 1905 over 90,000.
MR. H. J. TENNANT: Was there a change of the law?
MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied in the affirmative and said there was the Act of 1895, which, for the first time, brought these trivial accidents within the scope of the law and which led to the increase. It was not because there was any large increase in the number of accidents that occurred or that the industries were more dangerous, or that the employers were less careful in fencing the machinery; but the figures were swollen by the fact that more ace dents were reported. These were Blue-book accidents. The reporting of them involved a very serious amount of clerical work and prevented the inspectors from concentrating their attention upon serious accidents which were overlaid and concealed. Haphazard he picked up the list of accidents in the South London district on one day, the 16th of November, 1905. The number was eighteen and and among them were the following:—
"Boy—slipped on iron when walking—cut hand. Labourer—unloading van—cut hand

363
on broken barrel hoop. Labourer—walking—knocked foot—bruised toe. Box maker—scraping off glue—knife slipped—cub thumb. Packer—getting out straw—fell—bruised. Labourer—loading van—slipped and fell—hurt ankle. Assistant—stepping on box—lid save way—shoulder grazed. Labourer—lacing up boot—joint slipped—toe hurt."
These were of no use either as statistics or for inducing inspection. What use to the Department was a notification of the fact that a man was kicked harnessing a horse. Yet these figures were reported to the district inspector, then to the superintending inspector, and then went on to the statistical branch, and this occurred in regard to tens of thousands of cases from every place all over the country. No matter if the staff of factory inspectors was doubled, they could do much better work in the factories and workshops than in their offices, examining these trivial reports in regard to injuries that disabled for a period of five hours. It was still proposed to retain the reports even of slight accidents in regard to machinery or from explosives, because a trivial accident in those cases might reveal a grave danger. They, therefore, proposed to say that if there was incapacity for a period of one day from an accident arising from machinery or explosion it should still be reported to the inspector and the certifying surgeon, but that in other cases there should be incapacity for a considerably longer period than the law now required before a report was demanded. The Government suggested a period of fourteen days, but here again if that period was thought too long he should be ready to consider sympathetically a suggestion for its reduction. In the Bill of last year it was proposed to make also an alteration in the status of certifying surgeons, which was one more of form than of substance. It was not intended to reduce the amount of work done by the certifying surgeons, but they thought their position—and their emoluments—would be affected. As there was much opposition, and as no material point was involved, it was thought better to omit that particular provision from the Bill. The Bill, as the House would see, dealt only with comparatively small points of detail, a debate upon which could be most conveniently taken in Committee.
364
He should propose that the Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade, and he hoped the House would grant him the Second Reading of the Bill which he now begged to move.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That this Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
MR. COCHRANEsaid he took some interest in this Bill, which, as had been said, embodied many of the provisions of the measure which he had the honour to lay before the House last session. He congratulated the Under-Secretary upon the extreme clearness with which he had stated the case: he had done so with a wealth of illustration, which must have convinced the House that the present system of notifying accidents needed investigation and amendment. All sorts of cases such as the grazing of a shoulder or one incurred in regard to the lacing of boots had been reported as accidents to the Government Department. These cases were present in the mind of his right hon. friend the late Home Secretary when he appointed a Departmental Committee to consider the question, and that Committee issued a Departmental Report which contained the evidence upon which this Bill was framed. The inquiry was very thorough and full and had brought out the purposes which were served by notification. In the first place, it was desirable by means of notification to call attention at the earliest possible moment to accidents caused by machinery and explosions, as it was desirable that at the earliest possible moment the attention of His Majesty's inspectors of factories should be directed to seeing Whether machinery was properly or improperly fenced, in order that they might take all the necessary precautions to preserve the lives of the workers of this country. The information was also desired for statistical purposes, as it was of importance to the country that we should have a general knowledge of the class of accident which took place, and that general knowledge could be obtained only by inquiring into the various causes of accidents, and of the means by which the dangers could be met. Where the statistics had been overladen by a

365
mass of trivial and irrelevant detail it was impossible to sift them so that they could be made useful. Some standard of reportability was required, and he thought a good selection had been made of the information which was required to guide them. The Report of the Committee said that the information should be precise in character, proceed upon some standard, and embrace a wide range of accidents, although it was possible to make the range too wide. He thought the hon. Gentlemen had tried to meet the point. The object of this Bill was twofold—to introduce a more complete system of reporting accidents in mines and quarries, and to simplify and render more effective the present system of reporting accidents in factories and other places under the Factory Act. As the Under-Secretary shad pointed out, the present requirements in respect to mines and quarries were exceedingly defective. It was difficult to define what was a "serious personal injury." The Reports issued in 1904 in respect of reportable accidents in mines and quarries showed that 5,312 people were injured and 1,202 killed. But other statistics had been put forward showing that at least 75,000 accidents had occurred in mines and quarries, many of which ought also to be reportable. The Bill proposed that all accidents which disabled a man for more than fourteen days should be annually reported; the Under-Secretary of State had stated that when in Committee he should propose that that time should be changed, but he ventured to submit that the fourteen days should remain as the standard, because it would be incidentally an advantage to gather accurate statistics for the purposes of the Workman's Compensation Act. He quite admitted, however, that that was a detail that could be threshed out in Committee, there being no great principle involved; therefore, he took no hard and fast line upon that. As regarded the re-portability of accidents in factories, the present law was that if a man was absent for five hours on any of the three following days after the accident, the accident must be reported. That requirement was a difficult one because it was difficult to understand what view to take in cases where the result of the acci-
366
dent did not develop until some days afterwards. Such a requirement necessitated the reporting of a number of trivial accidents, and when the House realised that the inspectors were overwhelmed, that in one year, they were inundated with 90,000 cases of which the greater number were trivial, they would see the value of the statistics gathered by them; and the possibility of their attending to each case was completely put on one side and rendered nugatory by the great number of trivial cases which they were called upon at the same time to consider. In this there was room for improvement, but when the hon. Gentleman suggested that an accident should be reportable which prevented a man or woman from being present at their work on any day, he suggested it would be well to fix some reasonable date after which it should not be taken into consideration. If, for instance, a man met with some trifling accident and six months after suffered from a bad headache which he said was the result of the accident the case should not be considered as one necessarily to be notified. Otherwise the proposal was one that would commend itself to the House. The objects of the Bill as set out in the memorandum were well worthy of the consideration of the House. They were—
"To substitute the simple and clear standard of one whole day's absence for the present complicated standard in the case of the important classes of accidents such as accidents from machinery, etc.
"To abolish the limitation to the three days following the accident so as to make an accident reportable whenever the day's absence occurs;
"Other minor improvements effected by the Bill are the requirement that reports shall be made on the form and contain the particulars prescribed by the Secretary of State; the increase of the maximum penalty for failure to report under the Factory Act from £5 to £10, etc."
There was one other point to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, namely, the question of certifying surgeons. There had been some unnecessary alarm created among the certifying surgeons, who thought their sphere of influence was to be curtailed by this Bill, but in his opinion that alarm was unfounded. The Bill proposed was one that was contemplated by the late Government, but the exigencies of political life

367
made it impossible to proceed with it last session, and he was glad it was now introduced. He thought the proposal to send it to a Committee >vas a very wise one.
MR. MYERsaid he should very much like to see a change in our system of factory inspection. He should like to see working men made factory inspectors, men who understood machinery and the methods of working. Very often they knew the reason why an explosion occurred and why a man injured one day might be very well for perhaps a fortnight and then suddenly develop a poisoned hand or foot in consequence of the injury he had received. They also knew very often why machines were faulty, and whether machines were properly guarded or not. They knew the conditions under which men worked, and he certainly hoped that in the Bill some arrangement would be made for changing the classes of factory inspectors.
MR. GLOVERsaid he wished to thank the Government for bringing in this important measure. Many Members had thought in the past that a large number of accidents in the mines of this country had not been properly reported or that a large number were not reported, and they were therefore very pleased that a measure had been introduced which made it compulsory to report all accidents. Under the Mines Act those responsible for reporting accidents were only required to report such as were of a serious nature, and it was owing to that fact that there had not been more than 6,000 accidents reported to the inspector of mines during the past year. What was required was that all accidents should be reported in order that an accurate return might be made of all the accidents that took place. He understood that the chief reason for reporting these accidents was in order that the inspectors might visit the place where a serious accident had occurred for the purpose, if possible, of trying to prevent accidents of the same kind occurring in the future. He was not going to complain with regard to the staff of inspectors of mines who were at present engaged in
368
this kind of work, but he would like to point out that, owing to the large number of accidents which took place, it was impossible for the inspectors of mines to make any inspection of the mines generally, which ought to be done in order that accidents might be prevented, instead of the inspector merely going to look at the place where an accident had occurred. More inspectors of mines ought to b" appointed. He and his hon. friends would like to see at least one inspector or sub-inspector to every 10,000 employed. They were pleased that the Government had brought in the Bill, because they thought that if the accidents were reported daily it would certainly bring to the public mind the serious conditions under which the miners of the country had to work. It had been said that if all the accidents had been reported there would have been at least 100,000, but he ventured to say that that was a long way below the mark. There had been, he ventured to say, over 150,000 accidents during the last year, and the only way whereby they could get at the statistics and reports was by taking the information from the relief societies. Every accident was reported to these societies, and they could find out from them the number of accidents which took place. When he said that these societies' reports showed that an accident occurred to every five employed in the mines, it would be seen that the number came to something near what he had stated. He was pleased to see that the Bill was a great advance with regard to the nature of the accidents to be reported on the Mines' Regulation Act as it at present stood. There was, for instance, the question of electricity and electric shocks. Not very long ago in the district from which he came they were under the impression that it would be impossible for an accident to occur in connection with the electric supply in mines, but a youth came into contact with the cables in the mines and it caused his death. They therefore thought the Bill was a step in the right direction. The accidents ought to be reported when they occurred. It was stated that the accident should be reported if it prevented the workman returning to his work within fourteen days, but he would

369
suggest that it should be altered to three days. If an accident was of such a character as to prevent a workman from returning to his work after three days, it certainly ought to be reported. He trusted that three days would be substituted for fourteen days. A previous speaker had said that he hoped the fourteen days would be kept in because it would coincide with the Workmen's Compensation Act, but they hoped that it would be made three days and that there would be an amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act so that the workman should receive compensation if he was unable to return to his work three days after the occurrence of the accident. He hoped therefore the Government would see their way clear to insert three days instead of fourteen days. He thanked the Government for bringing in the measure, and he trusted it would pass its Second Reading and become law this session.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he was in agreement with others who had spoken in the debate about several matters, particularly with regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire as to the lucidity of the speech of his hon. friend who introduced this Bill. He thought those who had studied this question would admit that the position of the law was at the present time in a very confused and complicated state, and that being so, there was a fair case for the introduction of some amending measure. He did not wish to commit himself to all the details of the Bill, because it might be that he would have to move certain Amendments in the Committee stage, but in the main he thought the Bill travelled on the right lines. As regarded the usefulness of the Bill in the matter of statistics, he was not at all sure that an alteration of the law was in the interest of that branch of the subject. It must also be observed that if the Bill were carried into law, it would have the effect of enormously increasing the number of accidents reported under the Mines Act, and, on the other hand, of diminishing greatly the number of accidents reported under the Factories and Workshops' Act. He agreed with his hon. friend that there were at present too many trivial acci-
370
dents reported, which complicated the work and cost a great deal of time and money, and it would be well if they could hit upon a system by which only those accidents which were of serious moment should be reported to the Factory Department. As regarded the time for which accidents had to be reported, it was announced that the law relating to workmen's compensation was going to be altered, and he only hoped the periods would be made to correspond. He welcomed this Bill primarily because he believed it would leave the inspectors of factories more time to devote to most pressing duties.
MR. STUAET WORTLEYsaid he regarded the Bill as welcome, hut he wished to raise a point on behalf of railway companies, which stood in rather a special position. They had no desire to evade any duty imposed upon them by this House, and they had as much interest as anyone else in the reliability of statistics, because the information given to the Government was just as valuable to the undertakers of great enterprises as it was to the Government itself. Railway companies were not entirely outside the Bill, notwithstanding the impression which had been created that they were, because railway companies had not only working lines but also very large factories, and between these two kinds of installations they had sidings and lines which connected a railway with a factory, and sometimes also with a mine. In some cases the siding might belong to the owner of the factory, and in others to the railway company, and what he wished to enforce was that it was a just claim on the part of railway companies that they should not be bound to submit to the jurisdiction of and to make reports to two different Government departments in respect of one part of their undertaking. Let the factories which belonged to railways be quite separate and the same with regard to railroads. It would be an injustice if they were subjected to embarrassing conditions with regard to inspection as to accidents which arose on some part of their undertaking which it was difficult to allot to any particular department of the State. He felt sure the hon. Gentleman desired to make this point clear, and perhaps he would

371
give the House some assurance on the point before the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. GILLsaid he quite agreed with the change proposed by this Bill. Fe knew several cases where the present law had been evaded. He had known instances where a person had been injured in such a way that he could not come under the Act because he was compelled to stop at his work at the time although through the injury he had been compelled to go away afterwards. In such a case no report under the present law was necessary. If this Bill was carried and the person went away there would be a necessity to report it. He thought the increasing of the penalty to £10 was a very useful provision. A number of accidents which took place did not develop during the three days fixed by the Act. He knew an instance where an apparently trivial accident had taken place, and the person had gone on working for a week or two, and then ill effects had set in, and he was compelled to go off his work. He remembered a case where an operative spinner, working, as was the custom, with bare feet, got a little bit of iron in his foot; it afterwards had to be taken out and blood poisoning followed, with the result that he lost his toe and was permanently incapacitated. They wanted to prevent accidents, and if the reporting took place when the injured persons had been off one day, it might result in more fencing of machinery and the adoption of greater safeguards. There had been a great alteration in this respect since the passing of the Compensation Act. He knew one firm which had spent £6,000 in this way. Accidents had been reduced very largely in consequence of these precautions having been taken. The result of the passage of the Workmen's Compensation Act was that a much greater number of accidents had been reported. In the society with which he was connected he had dealt with 1,300 cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and there were a very large number of trivial accidents which had not compelled the operative to be off work for fourteen days. He did not altogether agree with the clause which required fourteen days to
372
elapse before a simple accident was reported; in his opinion that period was too long. There were many simple accidents, and the period should not be longer than three days. He did not wish to raise any prejudice on this point in regard to the Workmen's Compensation Bill which was to be introduced. The period in that Act was also too long, and there was much feeling amongst the working classes that the compensation ought to be from the date of accident. The Labour Members intended to try and get that period reduced. He thanked the House for listening to him. He was prepared to support the Second Reading, and would endeavour to get the alterations he had alluded to made in Committee.
MR. J. WARDsaid he rose to support the Bill before the House. He desired in the first place to get from the Under-Secretary a guarantee that under this Act the workmen would not be placed in any worse position than they were under the Industrial Accidents Act of 1894. [An HON MEMBER: They will be in a better position.] He did not think so. The Labour Party and the trade union representatives in this House were not so anxious to get statistical tables, for that was only a very trivial side of the question. They had discovered that so far as the application of the Industrial Accidents Act of 1894 was concerned, the compulsory reporting of accidents and the trouble which it caused to employers had tended to lessen the number of accidents, and that was the principal reason why they were supporting the Bill now before the House. There was another clause in the Act of 1894 which ought to apply and be included in this Act, and that was the provision under which, when in the opinion of the Board of Trade an accident was of sufficient importance to justify that course being taken, they had power to hold a statutory inquiry into the causes and circumstances of the accident. He thought a provision of that kind ought to be included in this Bill, because otherwise the correct information as to the cause of the accident was often hidden, and there was no possibility of getting a correct statement of the circumstances under which the accident had occurred.

373
Such inquiries enabled them to take the necessary precautions to avoid similar accidents in the future. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bolton as to the necessity of being careful in a measure dealing with industrial questions that they did not prejudge the case in the future, and the Industrial Accidents Act of 1894 was a peculiarly sinister illustration. Nearly all the trouble under the present Workmen's Compensation Act was due to the fact that the promoters of the Workmen's Compensation Act lifted into it the schedule so far as it applied to engineering works and put it into the Act and made it apply to circumstances entirely different. The well known instance of the buildings exceeding thirty feet in height he might mention, for it had caused endless confusion. Consequently he wished to be certain that in the passing of this measure, and by including the period of fourteen days, they were not committing themselves to that period as applied to the proposed Workmen's Compensation Act which they expected the Government to produce very shortly.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he joined with his colleagues in congratulating the Government upon the production of this Bill, but he had to complain that there was no mention in it of ships or seamen. It was a fact that there was no record kept or any reports sent to any Government Department of accidents on board ship.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELreminded the hon. Member that this point could be dealt with upon the proposed amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he did not agree with the hon. Member. He wished to remind him that a ship was a factory when it was alongside the quay, and he would like to make her a factory all round the world, because the Home Office was a good deal more liberal in their dealings with legislation affecting working men than the Board of Trade. Not that he wanted to set up any competition in this respect between those two departments, but he thought there ought to be some provision made
374
for reporting accidents on board ship. He was aware that accidents were supposed to be recorded in the official log of the vessel, but he would remind the House that very often ships went away on voyages of three years duration, and no report of any accidents were sent to any Government Department until the end of the voyage, and then of course the log book was handed in to the Board of Trade. He thought it would tend to make matters more safe on board ship if immediately the ship arrived in another port a report of any accident had to be sent on either to the Board of Trade or the Home Office. If the Home Office could bring ships within the scope of this Bill he should be very thankful. In cases of fatal accidents a proper report was sent immediately after the occurrence from the first port of arrival, but this was not done in the case of non-fatal accidents.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he desired to say a few words in reference to mines, and make one or two references to the manner in which the Bill had been drafted. He entirely approved of Section 1 which provided that the Home Office should obtain more statistical information with reference to accidents which took place in mines and quarries. With regard to Section 2 the object was a different one. Section 2 extended the obligation with reference to mines and quarries. That was all to the good, and he hoped it would have the effect of causing more care to be taken in dangerous places to secure the safety of the lives and limbs of those engaged there. For years in this House he had called attention to the system of legislation by referring to previous Acts, and he had urged that it should, if possible, be avoided. The hon. Member opposite had referred to the difficulty which had been experienced in the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act in consequence of that form of drafting. The result had been that every Court in the realm had said that the Act was a conundrum. He asked the House to consider what the Home Office had done in this case. The Bill now before the House had only six sections altogether. The first section referred to two sections of previous Acts—one

375
passed in 1887 and the other in 1875—and it provided that these sections—
"Shall be read as if the matters to be specified in the returns to be given under those sections respectively included a statement containing such particulars as the Secretary of State may prescribe of all accidents which occurred in or about the mine or quarry during the year to which the return relates, and disabled for more than fourteen days any person employed in or about the mine or quarry from working at his ordinary work."
Therefore it was impossible to construe Section 1 of this Bill without referring to the two Acts mentioned in it. Section 2 of this Bill said—
"Section 35 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, shall be read as if the following sub-section were substituted for Subsection 1 of that section.‡ The same subsection shall be substituted for so much of Section 11 of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, as is repealed by this Act, both as respects the application of that section to metalliferous mines and as respects its application to quarries."
Then they had to refer to the Schedule and see what the section of the Act of 1872 said. He challenged anybody who was not fairly skilled in statutory construction to read with any intelligence this kind of legislation. Section 3 said—
"Where any line or siding, not being part of a railway within the meaning of the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, is used in connection with a mine or quarry, the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, 1887 to 1896, and of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1875, as respectively amended by this Act with respect to returns and notification of accidents shall have effect as if the line or ailing were part of the mine or quarry."
It was perfectly easy to say in an Act of Parliament what the meaning of a section was. Section 5 of this Bill said—
"Section I of the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, shall be read as if the words 'cause him to be absent throughout at least one whole day from his ordinary work' were substituted for the words 'prevent him on any one of the three working days next after the occurrence of the accident from being employed for five hours on his ordinary work' in Sub-section I of that section."
His object in calling attention to this form of drafting was very simple. It was to impress on the Government that they ought, as far as possible, to put a stop to this system of legislation by reference to previous Acts of Parliament. He spoke as a lawyer, and he could state that the members of his profession had sometimes to cudgel their brains to find
376
the meaning of statutes in consequence of Acts being constructed in this way. It was particularly desirable that this form of drafting should be avoided in labour legislation. The Government ought to make their draftsmen put down in fairly plain and simple language what was meant, so that anybody could understand it. It should not be necessary to refer to half a dozen Acts of Parliament before getting the meaning of a particular statute.
MR. CARLILEsaid it was a matter of congratulation that this measure should have been received so sympathetically in every quarter of the House. He rose to call attention to a remark made by the hon. Member for Bolton in regard to which the House was entitled to rather more information. The hon. Member stated that he knew employers who compelled their employees to return to work for three days following an accident in order to avoid liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897.
MR. GILL: I did not say in order to prevent liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I said in order to prevent the reporting of the accident.
MR. CARLILEsaid he did not know that the explanation made any material difference as to the importance of the allegation. He thought he was justified in asking the hon. Member to enter more into detail when he made' an allegation of that kind. That there were employers of labour who were not considerate to their workmen no one could for a moment doubt, but that any considerable number of such persons could come within the knowledge of the hon. Member was, to his mind, extremely doubtful. The reception given to this measure in a House representative as it was of many large employers of labour showed that employers were not likely to compel persons injured by accidents to attend at their work in order to avoid having to report the suffering condition in which they were. He thought employers were entitled to feel indignant at such a suggestion.
MR. BELLsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down happily believed that there was no employer of labour, or no official of an employer, who desired to conceal accidents which occurred to workpeople. Unfortunately he himself knew of a number of cases where officials—he did not say employers—had asked men who had been injured to come to the works and that they would provide substitutes for them to do their work, so as to prevent a report of the accident being sent in.
MR. CARLILEpointed out that the emarks of the hon. Member for Bolton had reference to employers.
MR. BELLsaid he was not going to draw any distinction between overseer and employer. The employer was responsible for the overseer. He wanted to make sure in regard to Section 3 that this Bill would be operative in regard to all accidents. He was not at all satisfied that it would apply to a private line or siding worked by a railway company. That was where by misunderstanding, or perhaps shrewdness, some people evaded reporting accidents, and it was one of the important matters he had had to deal with during the past ten years. There was overlapping of the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade and the Home Office, particularly in reference to accidents on private railways and private sidings connected with collieries and other industries. Railway men in order to collect and distribute traffic had to travel over certain portions of these private railways, and some unfortunately met with accidents. The owner of the private railways did not report the accidents because the men injured were not in his employment, and the railway company did not report the accidents because they did not happen on their railway. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to provide in the Bill, if it was not already included, that all accidents which occurred on private sidings should be duly reported. He heartily supported the Bill, and he hoped that some day they would have a similar measure in regard to all railways.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could assure his hon. friend that it was
378
the intention of the Government that cases like that to which he had referred would be covered either by previous Acts or by this Bill so as to give his hon. friend the security he desired. His hon. friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield had asked that the railway companies should report always accidents to one authority. He could not guarantee now that railway companies should always report accidents to one authoirty. Under some Acts they might have to be reported to the Home Office and under others to the Board of Trade.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he did not want the railways to have to report to two authorities in respect of the same accident.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that was a perfectly legitimate request. The grievance to which his hon. and learned friend the Member for Mid Glamorganshire had drawn attention was felt much more by laymen than by lawyers like his hon. friend himself.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he had not been speaking as a lawyer but as a Member of this House.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid his hon. and learned friend was speaking with all the admirable qualities he possessed. This, however, was a case of wishing to be saved from the hon. and learned Gentleman and his learned friends. It would help them all if Bills were drawn in plain language which laymen as well as lawyers could understand. But it was a difficult matter to introduce a change and there were always temptations in Government departments not so much to approve of as to acquiesce in forms of drafting which were calculated to facilitate the passage of Bills through the House. He rose in particular to give one or two assurances. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough had spoken of the necessity of giving returns with regard to accidents on board ship. Of course, the Government desired that there should be full information with regard to accidents on ships whether they were at sea or in dock. But he was not sure whether it would be possible in

379
this Bill to do what the hon. Member desired. So far as anything could be done to meet his wishes the matter would be considered. With regard to the period of fourteen days he gave an assurance that there should be an assimilation as regarded this Bill and any subsequent amending Bill which might be brought in.
LORD R. CECILsaid that, before the Bill was disposed of, he wished, as a member of the legal profession, to say a word of dissent to what had been said by the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan. It was apparent from the speech of the Home Secretary that it was not the lawyers who were responsible for the outrageous complication of modern Acts of Parliament; and this Bill seemed to pass all bounds in the way of legislation by reference. The reason was a Parliamentary and not a legal one—it was to conceal the true meaning of a Bill so as to diminish opposition.
MR. MORTONwished to support the view that all Acts of Parliament referred to should be stated in the Bill itself. It was impossible, not only for laymen, but for lawyers to understand legislation of this kind without referring to a great number of Acts of Parliament. The matter had become a serious one, and in some States in America the difficulty was recognised, and by a clause of the constitution it was enacted that whenever a clause of another Act of Parliament was incorporated it should be fully recited in the Bill. He hoped the present Home Secretary with his great majority behind him would have the courage to deal adequately with this question, and to effect a reform which had been long delayed.
Question put.

POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL, in moving the Second Reading of the Police
380
Superannuation Bill, said that this was another small Departmental Bill which, in its greater part, the present Government had inherited from their predecessors. It was uncontroversial and involved no large question of principle. At present the cost of police superannuation was heavy and was a rapidly increasing burden on public funds. Ten years ago it amounted to £578,000, but in 1904–5 it amounted to over £900,000, of which only £100,000 came from the police. £300,000 came from the Exchequer, £300,000 from the rates, and £200,000 from interest on capital, certain fines, fees, etc. To diminish the scale of pension was not desirable; but police authorities had suggested a method of lightening the burden, and it was now submitted to the House. If constables could be induced to continue their service for a longer period there would be a greater saving. Five men serving for thirty years would do the same work as six men serving for twenty-five years, but the cost of training and pensioning a man would be saved. Besides, some of the most valuable men were now lost to the force in the prime of life. But men who remained in the force after becoming entitled to pension were exposed to the risk of losing their pension from misconduct or negligence; while, after the constable had once left the force, he could only forfeit his pension by committing some one of a small number of grave offences. These were—conviction of a criminal offence and sentence to prison; association with thieves or reputed thieves; refusing to assist police in detecting crime; and carrying on an illegal occupation or occupation in which improper use was made of the man's position as a police officer. Consequently most men preferred to retire on pensions as soon as they were entitled to do so. Again, police authorities were deterred from offering a small additional payment to induce continuation of service because that payment would itself become pensionable, and would, therefore, have the effect of increasing the pension burden. The Bill offered a remedy for both difficulties. Under its provisions a constable might continue in the service after becoming entitled to pension, and his pension would be liable

381
to forfeit only for the same grave offences for which it would have been liable to forfeit had he retired; while the extra pay given for continuing in the force would not necessarily be the basis for a further increase in pension. The police authorities generally were in favour of the measure. Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Lancashire, West Riding, Cumberland, Durham, Staffordshire, Kent, Sussex, Monmouthshire, and many more, had passed resolutions in its favour. There was practically no opposition, and in 1904 the Bill was read a second time in this House without a Division and passed through the Grand Committee, but then no further progress was made with it and it was dropped. To that Bill the Government now proposed to make some additions. Clause 2 dealt with a problem that had recently arisen with regard to the question of discontinuous service. An action tried in the Court of King's Bench in December, 1903, resulted in a declaration that, as the law stood, a constable who retired from the police force for whatever reason and who rejoined later was not entitled to have his first period of service counted as part of his service for the pension to which he was entitled. That pressed very hardly on the constable in some cases. In one case a constable in Lincolnshire served for seven years in the police force and then resigned, he believed, on account of ill health. After four months he recovered and rejoined the force and served for a period of twenty-five years altogether when he retired on a pension of £45. As soon as the case to which he had referred was decided and it was held that a break in the service forfeited on the part of the constable all benefit with regard to his first period of service, the Lincolnshire police authority had no alternative but to wipe off seven years of the service of this constable, and as a result the pension was reduced from £45 to £27. That was exceedingly hard. The Lord Chief Justice who tried the case previously mentioned, expressed the opinion that this was an imperfection in the law and that an amendment of the Act was urgently desirable. Clause 3 dealt with another point. When the Boer War broke out a number of policemen who were also Army reservists were
382
called out and had to go to South Africa, and it was found necessary to pass in 1902 a special Act to secure that their rights to their pensions were not prejudiced by their going to fight in South Africa. That Act only applied to the men who were called out at that time, and it was now proposed to make that rule permanent, so that if any such case arose in the future it would not be necessary for Parliament to have recourse to special legislation. Clause 4 added three further clauses to those he had already mentioned which would result in the forfeiture of his pension by a police constable. If a constable, after leaving the force, was sentenced to imprisonment or consorted with thieves or refused to give assistance to the police in detecting crime, and so forth, he forfeited his pension. It was proposed to add to that that if he published in a discreditable manner confidential information which he had obtained while in the service he should forfeit his pension. Very great temptation was often put in the way of a constable who had left the service to disclose, for an improper purpose, information which he had obtained while in the service, and it was considered most necessary to impose some penalty on those police constables who published such confidential information. A most evil practice also occasionally existed of police officers who retired from the force receiving testimonials of large pecuniary value from publicans and others in the district of which they had had the supervision, and that practice had gone so far in London that in some cases ex-police superintendents or inspectors had been known to canvass and solicit pecuniary testimonials in the district of which they had charge. In one or two cases the Commissioner of Police had protested against this practice, but as the police constable had retired he had no power to stop such a regrettable occurrence and his protests had been ignored. The Bill provided that where such a practice occurred the police authority might thereupon enforce the forfeiture of the pension of the constable concerned. The third and last addition was in the case of a constable who engaged in or continued to be engaged in a private detective agency after being prohibited

383
from doing so on reasonable grounds. It was not proposed to prohibit altogether a police officer becoming a private detective, but it was desired, where it was known that the private detective agency was conducted in a discreditable manner, to give the police authority power to interfere and enforce the retirement of the ex-police officer from such agency. Those were the purposes of the Bill. He was sure the police force of this country had the goodwill of this House. The men were often subjected to hardship and were sometimes exposed to great danger, and any measure which would in some degree relieve the disabilities from which they suffered and raise the status of the force, and which at the same time would achieve some measure of economy, would, he was sure, meet with the favour of Parliament. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that as one who had been for some time connected with the force, he was glad the Government had seen their way to adopt the Bill which had been contemplated by the late Government to amend the Police Act. He congratulated the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department upon the admirably clear and concise speech in which he had laid the provisions of the Bill before the House. He believed it was a Bill that would give great satisfaction and advance the position of this branch of the public service. On the first clause there was nothing to add to the observations of the Under-Secretary, although it must be admitted that a man who had not been promoted to a superior rank was not fit for much after twenty-five years service in the streets. Therefore, the services of a very valuable officer were lost to he public for three, four, or five years. At the same time it was necessary, of course, to safeguard the interests of the force, and to prevent men who were not in a physical condition of health from discharging their duties, and possibly to continue their services to the prejudice of others whose promotion
384
might be stopped. But he thought by Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, and by the annual medical examination, which would be required of every officer serving, beyond the period at which he could obtain his pension, sufficient protection was given in that direction. As regarded the second clause, owing to the great exposure to which the police had to-submit, a member of the force might find his health give way and a few months or a year's rest might help him to regain it and he would be able to rejoin the force, and instead of having an untrained recruit, the services were retained of a very valuable member. He was sure the police authorities would be gratified at the embodiment in a permanent Act of the provisions to meet the case of those police who were in the Army Reserve. Nor had he any criticism of an adverse character to make as regarded Section 4. There had undoubtedly been occasional instances in which police officers employed upon very special and confidential work might have pecuniary inducements held out to them to publish their reminiscences, details of which were of a strictly confidential character, and which could not possibly advance the public interest. This difficulty had had to be dealt with in other countries. Several of the heads of the detective service in France had published their reminiscences and disclosed many facts which ought to have been kept perfectly confidential, and the tendency had crept into this country. It was a very desirable thing to safeguard the interests of the public in this matter, and he did not think any objection would be taken by any police officer to the incorporation of these conditions. As-regarded the sub-section as to engaging in private inquiry work, that was also a matter which would have to be very carefully regulated. He was sure there was no police authority, and least of all the Police Commissioner of the Metropolis, who wished to interfere with a man augmenting, in an honest way his pension, which was often a modest amount, but cases had occurred in which judges had commented very adversely upon private inquiry agencies, and it was not desirable that pensioners from the Metropolitan or other police forces should be engaged in these occupations.

385
if they were of an unsatisfactory character. He thanked the Government for having so quickly adopted the views of the late Home Secretary and brought this Bill forward.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he did not desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but he certainly did not think that opinion in favour of its principal provision was quite so unanimous as had been represented. The object, and no doubt the effect, of that provision would be to encourage constables who had already served the statutory period to enter into arrangements to continue in the service, and he was not at all sure that it was a satisfactory thing to encourage arrangements of that sort. Parliament had prescribed twenty-five years as a period of service after which a constable might claim his pension, and if they kept the old constables in the force one effect would be to check what perhaps he might call a proper flow of promotion, and secondly, as regarded the outside world, it must not be forgotten, especially in the present state of the labour market, that every constable who remained in the police service after the expiry of the statutory period was keeping another man out of a job. He liked Section 2 so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. It was worthy of consideration whether it should not be made compulsory. Section 4 of the Bill added to the cases in which a pension might be forfeited, and when the Under-Secretary referred to its provisions there were some cheers, but he thought those cheers were due to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had not quoted accurately the form of words. He told the House that the pension would be forfeited if the constable published confidential information in a discreditable manner. If the clause ran in that way he would not raise any objection to it. But the clause ran as follows—
"If the grantee publishes in a manner which the police authority consider to be discreditable or improper any information of a confidential nature which he may have obtained in the course of his employment in the police"
his pension would be forfeited. That clearly made the police authority judges in their own court. There was an appeal
386
from the police authority to the quarter sessions, but the latter could do nothing. He suggested that the words in the Secrets Act, 1889, should be adopted, namely—
"Wilfully publishes when in the interests of the police it should not be published."
If words like these were substituted there would be no valid objection to the clause. Great difficulty was caused owing to the fact that there was no definition in the Police Act of the word "pay." Police authorities instead of increasing a constable's pay sometimes gave him what they called an allowance for special duty. The only object of not calling it pay was to prevent its being rated for pension. In some cases a constable when he retired was practically defrauded of the proper amount of his pension. In other cases, where the constable had served under the police authorities the police authority which adopted this expedient was able to throw an unfair proportion of the pension on to the other authority. He hoped the Government would consider the possibility of putting into the Bill a definition of the word "pay."
MR. CAVEsaid that he agreed with the principle of Clause 1. The experience in his county was that as soon as a constable got his full pension he retired from the force, with the result that they lost some of their best men far too soon. They very much regretted this, because many of those constables were able to do a good many more years work, and they were anxious to be able to keep them in the force. But the clause required to be amended. The Bill provided that the police authority might direct, that when a constable entitled to retire on a pension continued to serve in the force, such constable should be entitled on retiring at any time thereafter to receive a full pension, and that such pension should not be liable to forfeiture except in certain events involving grave misconduct. In his opinion the result of that would be to put the old officers in a privileged position. The police force was a quasi-military force, and they all desired that discipline should be maintained, but there was some danger in placing a particular section of the police force in

387
a different position to the rest of the force. A direction ought to be inserted limiting this privilege say to one year, and it might be renewed from year to year; and then, if there was any breach of discipline so serious that the police authority did not think it advisable to continue this privileged position, they might without any trouble put an end to it by refusing to renew the privilege, and the constable would then leave the force with his pension. That, he thought, would be an improvement and he hoped it would be considered He trusted that the Bill would be read a second time.
MR. W. H. DAVIESsaid he quite approved of the proposals of the Bill. The subject dealt with was causing considerable anxiety among municipalities on account of the increased cost of the pension fund. He assumed it was the intention of the Government in introducing this Bill to secure the efficiency of the police force as well as economy. He feared that the clause of the measure which proposed to allow policemen to remain in the force for a longer period than twenty-five years would, unless there was some advantage to be gained, only result in their not remaining. In the city he represented many of their able and capable retired policemen were able to secure profitable positions at higher salaries and with larger pensions than they would receive if they had remained in the police force. Unless this clause was considered more generously they would not be able to retain those men in the police force.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was entirely against the principle of this Bill. The effect of Clause 1 would be that when constables had finished their statutory period of service which entitled them to retire on a pension the authority would have power to take them on again in the force in a new category, under which their additional service would not count for pension, and they would receive a small amount of money in addition to the pension that they otherwise would have got. The constable who had obtained the right by his service to retire and receive a pension would be retained in the force by the local authority and would receive wages instead of pension
388
which would amount to a little more than the pension. This scheme had been tried in Liverpool for two 'years, and it had been found to be a failure. He could understand that it was very desirable to keep the men from retiring, but even a police constable's legs had only a limited life.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS. RETURNING OFFICERS CHARGES.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid it was his privilege to submit to the House a Resolution which he had submitted to it and which he was successful in carrying twelve years ago. Since he last had the honour of speaking in this House many changes had taken place, but no change had taken place in regard to the subject matter of his Resolution. The Resolution which he now proposed was one that raised a very clear issue indeed, namely, the conditions under which hon. and right hon. Gentleman came into this House. He wished to know why a candidate for Parliamentary honours should be put in a worse position than a candidate for any other public office in this country. There were a number of positions of honour and importance in this country, and for every one of those positions the candidate who submitted himself to the electorate was held free from any charge whatsoever for the cost of the machinery necessary for the election. He might be told that that was only one portion of the question, but he contended that what a candidate chose to spend himself within the limits of the Corrupt Practices Act was his own affair. In this case the candidate was penalised by having to pay the expense of taking the votes. He wanted to know why, of all the candidates who submitted themselves to the electorates of this country for election to positions of honour, the candidate for Parliament

  389
  alone should have to bear the whole of the official expenses of the election. His Resolution contained two distinct propositions; the first half was—
  "To call attention to the official charges of returning officers at Parliamentary elections, and to move that in the opinion of this House the returning officers expenses and all other j official charges in connection with Parliamentary elections should be defrayed out of public funds;"
  and the second half dealt with the scale of charges contained in the Act governing the elections, the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Expenses Act, 1875. What he desired to get from this new Parliament was the opinion of the House upon the question of whether or not a candidate ought to be relieved from these charges. The question of whether the Consolidated Fund or the rates was eventually to bear the expense could not be settled by any abstract Resolution of this description. Should the Resolution, however, be carried and the Government of the day think proper to bring in a Bill to relieve the candidate of these expenses, it would be for the Minister in charge of the Bill to say whether the expense was to be borne by the Consolidated Fund or the rates, and it would then be in the power of the House to say on which fund the expenditure should be charged. When this question was before the House in 1894 three very important speeches were made in support of the Resolution by three eminent gentlemen who at that time held very different political opinions and represented different sections of the House. Sir Henry James, now Lord James of Hereford, said—
  "His hon. friend spoke of putting the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, but he protested against that. If the burden were to be removed it ought to be cast upon the locality."
  The present Secretary of State for India (Mr. John Morley), who spoke on behalf of the Government of the day, took the same view as Lord James of Hereford. He said—
  "The question is upon what public funds the charges should be cast; and the view of the Government is that they should be cast upon the locality."
  The third speech was made by one who at that time adorned this House, Lord Randolph Churchill, who said—
  "It was the greatest object the State could achieve to get a complete representation of all
  390
  classes in Parliament, whether they were labour representatives, representatives of the middle classes, representatives of literature, or science, or art, or law, or even of the landed interest; and therefore it was right that to achieve that end there should be a contribution from the Consolidated Fund."
  Notwithstanding the strong difference of opinion among those right hon. Gentlemen as to the fund which should bear the burden, all three supported the Resolution, and the position they then took up justified him in trying to get a clear issue before the House—an issue the terms of which would not prevent any hon. Member voting for the Resolution because he might differ as to the particular fund that was to bear the burden. After all, the burden was not very heavy, whichever fund had to bear it, as was proved by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, who, in 1894, calculated that if these charges came out of the rates the extra rate necessitated would be half a farthing if the election took place every four years, or one-eighth of a farthing annually. The present amount that had to be paid by candidates to returning officers was, he believed, entirely unjustifiable and illegal. The history of this question was very simple. These charges grew up under the old system when very little machinery was necessary. The first time that any real machinery came into existence was with the passing of the Ballot Act of 1872. It was then necessary to have complete machinery for the gathering in of the votes of the community. At that time there was no limit to the charges of the returning officer. Those were the halcyon days of those gentlemen, but that state of things was found to be so detrimental, that in 1875 Lord James of Hereford and Sir William Harcourt took the matter up and piloted through the House of Commons the Act of that year. It might seem to hon. Members in these days that the task of getting the Act of 1875 through the House was not a heavy one, but he remembered that Lord James of Hereford in 1894 made use of some very strong expressions as to his experience of forcing that Act through the House. The noble Lord, then Sir Henry James, said—
  "In those old days very heavy charges were made against a candidate as the right of the

  391
  returning officer to make such charges was almost unlimited. No matter how preposterous the charges might be, the candidate was always advised to pay them, as otherwise he would make himself extremely unpopular in the constituency. He recollected well that in 1875 there was a strong feeling in the House in favour of these over charges. Members who supported the Bill were subjected even to personal abuse and it was charged against them that they were men of narrow spirit who were trying to deprive the returning officers of their vested interests in elections."
  They had gone a long way since then, and he hoped they would go still further and get rid entirely of these so-called vested interests which penalised not only representatives of the working-classes, but men of intellect and small means whose ability would be of great service both to this House and to the nation. It might be said that if this anomaly were done away with it would detract from the dignity of the candidate. But they had elections to the county councils and other public bodies at which Peers of the Realm stood and had their expenses paid, without its in the least detracting from their dignity. A few years ago there was an election in Stepney for the county council. The hon. Member for Central Finsbury was one candidate, and the Hon. Member for Stepney was his opponent. The election took place and the official expenses were paid. A week afterwards both hon. Members were fighting a Parliamentary election in respect to which they had to pay the whole of these expenses. What he desired those who opposed this Motion to do was to point out what metamorphosis had taken place which necessitated that while a man fighting a county council election had his expenses paid the same man when putting up for this House had to pay them himself. He himself was asked to put down on his nomination paper no less than £450. It was there! The amount that he and the right hon. Gentleman he was fighting had to put down on that Saturday morning was £900, and they had to find it in order that 20,000 citizens might have the opportunity of using their right of citizenship to go to the polling booth and register their vote, and to express their opinions upon the great Imperial and national questions before the country. He wanted that justified if it could be. The community had accepted a representative system,
  392
  and, that being so, it was only fair that they should bear the cost. He had heard a good deal about the burden not being heavy upon the candidates, and he would, with the permission of the House, just give the grand totals of the cost of the elections since 1895. The total cost of the election in 1885 was £235,906; in 1886 it was £138,937; in 1892 £197,542; in 1895 £156,741; and in 1900, £150,278. With regard to the election of 1906 the figures were not yet available, but he had struck an average for that of £200,000, which he thought was well within the mark. Since 1885 the candidates had paid £1,080,406 as their share of the cost of setting up the machinery for the Parliamentary elections. To show how it affected individual cases he had taken the trouble to extract from the Parliamentary Returns the cost to four Gentlemen who sat in the House through five general elections—the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland, the hon. Member for Mid. Durham, the hon. Member for Rhondda Valley, and the late Mr. Pickard. He found that the total official expenses for the five elections of those Gentlemen was £4,114 4s. 2d., while the other expenses amounted to £6,82617s. 5d. and that the official expenses were 38 per cent, of the entire sum which these Gentlemen had to find for the elections. That was a very heavy penalty indeed for anyone to pay for coming into this House, and it was one which the House would be glad to see removed. It might be said that if they attempted to deal with these charges they would find one or two difficulties in their way. What, for instance, were they to do with bogus candidates? In that regard he had always expressed himself as being in favour of a Second Ballot. But it might be said that that would not entirely kill the bogus candidate; if it did not they would not object to a legitimate penalty in the shape of a sum to be paid down in the first instance, to be forfeited by the candidate if he did not poll a fair percentage of votes. The position was this—these charges were either justifiable or unjustifiable. If they were justifiable why was there a differentiation between the position of a candidate for this House and the position of a candidate for a county council? He thought they were entirely unjustifiable,

  393
  that they were the last ditch of the property qualification for entry to this House. Hon. Members knew the kind of argument used in times gone by as to what would happen to the House if they extended the suffrage. They knew what was urged against their friends when they were trying to get rid of the old property qualification in 1858. Then they had some outspoken criticisms, but they were honest. Mr. Drummond said—
  "Suppose they had no qualification, suppose they were all paupers, what would they get by that? If they divorced property from political power it would be impossible to preserve the framework of society. They had heard some little hints as to what those Gentlemen who really desired reform meant to do when they got it. It was to throw the whole burden of taxation upon that Uptopian society called the 'rich,' and then they would soon have the happiness of being reduced to an uniform level of pauperism."
  All he could say was that the abolition of the property qualification in 1858 had operated very slowly in throwing the burden upon the "Utopian society," and that we were not yet reduced to the uniform level of pauperism. Another speech from which he would quote was that of Mr. Bentinck, who said—
  "He opposed it on principle because he believed that a property qualification was an essential ingredient in the constitution of that House."
  "It was urged that such proceedings would open the door to bankrupts, spendthrifts, and paupers—and he had heard nothing to invalidate that argument."
  It was true that from time to time undesirables did find their way into this House, but an exclusive franchise or the property qualification, the payment of official expenses would not have kept them out. Those were persons who came here for the deliberate purpose of using their position in this House for their own ends, and not for the dignity conferred upon those who were sent here as representatives of the people. That was the argument in favour of the first part of the Resolution.
  The second part dealt with the material reduction of the expenditure for Parliamentary elections. He wanted it to be known as widely as possible, and he believed a debate in this House immediately after a general election, when
  394
  Members were face to face with the returning officers' expenses, would have a good effect, that the accounts of returning officers were, according to the law, to be taxed. The returning officer under the law as it at present existed could not make a profit out of his services. Under the Act of 1875 he was allowed to charge his own fees, but so far as the other expenses he was put to were concerned he was the trustee of the candidate and must conduct his business as a trustee in the best possible manner, and give a voucher for every penny of expenditure. When Lord James of Hereford and Sir William Harcourt performed the great work of getting the Act of 1875 through the House they inserted a scale of charges which was to be the maximum. That, as he understood, meant that the scale was not to be exceeded, but that had now been construed by the returning officers to mean the normal charge. Some of those gentlemen had had a terrible awakening and others would have a terrible awakening later. Some returning officers charged 5s. each for the hire of ballot boxes, and that was a very lucrative thing. He had before him the advertisement of a firm of law stationers in which boxes were offered at 8s. 6d., 10s. 6d., and the best quality at 16s. 6d. These boxes could be turned into deed boxes until they were wanted again. When these charges were fixed by Lord James he had no idea that they were to be used in this way. As to the question of mileage he remembered Admiral Field stated that he knew a case where 1s. a mile was charged for twenty-four miles by railway, though the distance was only nine miles by road. Ballot papers were charged at the rate of 30s. per thousand. His hon. friends opposite would wish that the workmen should get a fair proportion of the 30s. They did not want the workmen concerned in producing ballot papers to be sweated, but they protested against the sweating of candidates by returning officers. Something had been done to amend the law in relation to election expenses in the case of county council elections. The Local Government Act of 1888 gave county councils power to draw up a new scale. He had

  395
  taken the trouble to get together several of the amended scales which had been adopted by county councils throughout the country. These new scales showed a very marked difference in the charges. The London County Council, which was very generous, allowed a sum not exceeding 17s. 6d. per thousand for ballot papers; and they allowed presiding officers two guineas a day instead of the four guineas allowed in counties at present. He wanted to tell the House how this affected a candidate. He knew of a case where there was a dispute in regard to the expenses of the returning officer. The returning officer asked how much was wanted back. The reply was that £100 was wanted, and that amount came back. Lord James, speaking in 1894, said he thought it possible that the whole scale then in existence might be reduced by at least one-third. If that reduction could be made it would be of great advantage to candidates, and to the community in case they had to pay. He did not believe it would be possible for returning officers to make the charges they did if their accounts had to undergo an audit by a public body. In his opinion, all this expenditure was not at all necessary. The reform he suggested—and it could easily be effected under the Ballot Act—was that there should be in the hands of one of the local authorities a complete set of election machinery which could be loaned at a fixed sum to other authorities as they required to use it. In that way the whole of the expenditure now incurred could be swept away.
  He was waiting to see the amount of the charge in the recent election for the City of London. There had been no case there since 1892 where the charges could be compared as between a Parliamentary and a county councilelection. Inthatyear, when there were both, he found that the County Council election cost £364 9s. 6d., while the Parliamentary election cost £732 19s. In 1895 a county council election in Camberwell cost £169 6s. 6d. and a Parliamentary election cost £273 8s.; in Dulwich a county council election cost £183 14s. and a Parliamentary election cost £333 3s. He could give many other instances of the same kind
  396
  where the areas and the polling places were identical. He sincerely hoped that the Government would now follow the precedent of 1894. At that time a similar Motion was submitted to the House, but political events prevented the Government from carrying it to a practical result. He sincerely hoped that the Government would not only accept the Resolution, but would embody it in an Act and place it on the Statute book.
  MR. FENWICKcongratulated the hon. Member for the Dartford division on his return to the House, and on the ability and clearness with which he had presented the Resolution. Whatever might be thought of the broader question of the payment of Members, there could be no difference of opinion as to the claim that such official expenses as were incurred in the interests of the general public and in compliance with statutory regulations should be paid from public sources. Under the present system every general election seemed to be regarded as a fitting opportunity for fleecing the various gentlemen who submitted themselves for election to serve the public interest in Parliament. These expenses had always seemed to him unjust and excessive, and yet they had a tendency to grow from election to election. That, no doubt, was partly the consequence of the growth of the population and the addition that was made every year to the electorate in the various constituencies. He contended that these expenses ought not to be borne by the individual candidates, but by the community at large. When he was first elected the official charges amounted to £542, distributed, of course, between his opponent and himself. Twenty years had intervened since then, and at the election just over the expenses amounted to £783. He had gone through six contested elections in these twenty years, and on each occasion a charge had been made for the use of ballot boxes and stamping apparatus. The House knew well that he did not personally pay the election expenses, but his friends who supported his views had had to pay them, and long ere now they had acquired a vested interest in the ballot boxes and stamping apparatus, and yet he found

  397
  that at the last election a sum of £30 was put down for the use of them. He pointed out the inequality of sacrifice in the case of a candidate in a county as compared with a candidate in a borough. Of course, they might be told that the borough area was more compact and necessarily less expensive to work than the county, but that was small comfort to the candidate when he had been mulcted in official expenses to the tune of £150 or £200 more than his neighbour just over the imaginary line which divided the county and the borough constituencies. At the election of 1900, in the Wansbeck Division with an electorate of 14,179, the official expenses were £685, while in the East Bradford Division with an electorate of 14,189, the expenses were only £286. At the same election in Battersea, with an electorate of 14,420, the official expenses were only £334. These inequalities ought not to be tolerated by this House or the country. There were nine representatives of universities in the House, and their official costs in contested elections were practically nil. In 1886 his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth introduced a Bill the object of which was to reduce the official charges in Ireland. That Bill passed through all its stages in this House. In Committee an Amendment was carried which abolished the whole of the official expenses so far as the representation of Ireland was concerned. That Bill went to another place, and as the gentlemen there were not accustomed to submit themselves to constituencies for election that Amendment was struck out. He was sorry to say that before this House had time to consider the Lords' Amendment Parliament was dissolved, and they were face to face with another election. He thought his hon. friend who moved the Resolution was pretty accurate in estimating that the cost would be about £200,000 if these expenses were thrown on the Consolidated Fund or the local rates. General elections took place on the average every four or five years, and, that being so, he did not think that was an enormous sum to throw on the Consolidated Fund or the local rates. Those who objected to the cheapening of elections often said that the abolition of
  398
  official charges would lead to unnecessary and factious contests. But even under the present arrangement they did not get rid of such contests. In the six contested elections he had gone through his average majority in the first four was 3,160. At the khaki election in 1900 it fell to 1,191, because of the vigorous stand he made in opposing what he considered to be an unrighteous war. At the recent election it rose to 7,176, and no doubt if he lived he would have another contest at the next election. He sincerely hoped that the Government would accept the Resolution.
  Motion proposed, "That in the opinion of this House, the returning officers' expenses, and all other official charges in connection with Parliamentary elections, should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Expenses Act, 1875."—(Mr. Rowlands.)
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the Motion before the House seemed to divide itself into two parts. The first part was a declaration that the expenses which were charged against candidates by returning officers should be cast upon the public funds, and the other, which seemed to him to be an entirely different subject, was a declaration that the amount of these charges was excessive. He entirely agreed with the proposer of the Motion with regard to the first part, but entirely differed from him with regard to the second. Personally he had had the advantage of having served in practically every capacity that was possible at an election. He had been canvasser, poll clerk, presiding officer, returning officer, and candidate. Therefore, he had had the advantage of making these charges and paying them. He hoped he had earned them by doing the work properly, because none of the elections in which he was concerned had in any way gone wrong The House ought to be grateful to the proposer of the Motion for pointing out the difference of practice in the matter of official expenses at municipal and Parliamentary elections. He could assure the hon. Member that in a good

  399
  many cases the charges made by returning officers were not excessive and that the amounts were earned by the work done. Four-fifths of any returning officer's charges were in the nature of payments which had to be vouched and were subject to taxation. Therefore it was absurd to suggest that returning officers, who had been held up to a little contumely and upon whom a little reflection had been cast, were bloated plutocrats, drawing improper remuneration out of the pockets of Members of this House. He was convinced that the charges ought not to fall on the candidates. They ought to be paid by the counties and the boroughs. In the case of municipal elections these expenses were paid by the boroughs. If that was a right thing to do in the case of municipal elections, the same practice ought to be introduced with respect to Parliamentary elections. His experience in municipal elections had shown him that the absence of any deposit or penalty had tendency to create bogus candidates—men got nominated for the express purpose of advertising themselves. He understood the proposer of the Motion to suggest that a small deposit should be exacted from each candidate, and that it should be returned if a certain reasonable proportion of the electorate voted for the candidate. There was no doubt that the House of Commons to-day was more democratic than it ever was in days gone by. It was not only more democratic in membership, but also, he believed, in its ideas and instincts, and regard should be had to these ideas and instincts. Then, further, in all countries which had legislative assemblies those charges were paid by the State. He was not one of those who habitually contended that because other countries adopted some practice this country should do the same. He thought that argument was absurd; but there was this to be said for it, that we were not the sole depositories of wisdom, and when we saw other countries almost universally adopting a particular practice it afforded a reason for examining into the subject. The next reason was that the fact of candidates having to pay those charges, which were sometimes very excessive, tended to make membership of this House the exclusive privilege of the
  400
  rich. He was one of these who thought that to-day the rich had not the exclusive privilege of education, intelligence, common sense, ability, or devotion to the general interests of the community; and therefore any barrier which tended to keep the membership of the House to the rich ought to be swept away. There should be no distinction between Members who represented the scattered constituencies, where the charges were very high, and Members for boroughs where the charges were comparatively moderate. He had much pleasure in supporting the Motion.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that this was one of many matters in which this House might follow the example set by some of the colonies. He had recently been throughout the length and breadth of Australia, and had found after inquiry that the public expenses at all election contests were borne by the State, and with the very best results. In some of the Australian States candidates were required to make a certain deposit to show that their candidature was bona fide, and this deposit was returned if the candidate polled a reasonable number of votes. Bogus candidates were few in the Australian States; the elections were conducted in a proper way, and the result had been most satisfactory. He had listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Resolution when he gave the House figures showing how the number of electors in his constituency had continually increased. He regretted to say that he had an exactly opposite experience, as had also some other Irish Members. When first elected to the House the constituency he represented contained some thousands more electors than now, and therefore he had not to complain that the public expenses of an election had increased. They had decreased, but that did not in the slightest degree do away with the ha dship and injustice which the present arrangement inflicted on poor men. It enabled a candidate who possessed a great deal of money, and absolutely nothing else to talk about, to give a great deal of trouble and annoyance to another candidate who had every other qualification in the world except money. By way of illustrating how

  401
  the thing worked he would state the case of his own constituency in the county of Clare. In 1885, in a constituency of 12,000, the opponents of Home Rule were in a small and insignificant minority. The policy of those who opposed the Nationalist Party was, if they could not succeed in defeating the Nationalist candidate, to do the next best thing. They ran a candidate simply to deplete as far as they could the treasury of their political opponents by compelling them to spend large sums of money. Both divisions of Clare were contested, and the Conservatives did not succeed in polling more than one vote for every pound they had paid the returning officer. At the next election, in 1886, the same course was pursued by the Conservative party, although they knew that they could not poll more than 300 or 400 votes, and the man who could command a majority of 6,000 votes was obliged to pay £300 for returning officer's expenses. On the day of the election the candidates opposed to the Nationalist Party jeered and boasted, "We know we cannot win, but we will make these poor Home Rule candidates pay out their money, and they will get tired of that." That was a state of affairs which could not be permitted to continue. So far as they in Ireland were concerned they had the utmost sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Resolution, and if it was necessary to do so they would support him on a division. However, he hardly thought that anyone at this time of day would oppose a suggestion so obviously fair and wise. He had been somewhat astonished to hear the free and democratic expression of opinion from the representative of a Lancashire constituency on the Opposition benches, and he hoped that when a certain exalted personage who wanted to copy other countries in other things returned to the House he would not change his opinion. He was certain that this measure would be supported by every Member who wished to see fair play, and that no man should be excluded from the House for want of money.
  MR. STUARTsaid it seemed that there was not to be any opposition to the Resolution from the
  402
  Conservative side of the House, and he believed that in this Parliament many other measures would be passed which met with opposition from the Conservative Party on former occasions. He trusted that the House would not stop at passing the Resolution, but insist on its being embodied into law by the present Parliament, and on the Government taking up the question. One or two points had been raised as possible difficulties in the way of the payment of the returning officer's expenses. One was that it would induce bogus candidates to come forward, but he believed that that was a bogus difficulty. He had had experience of six general elections for the London County Council, and many bye-elections which had been conducted with the vigour and the energy of Parliamentay elections, and he was not able to recall any instance of a canditature which was not justified by the results. Therefore he was not afraid of bogus candidates, and he welcomed a proposition which would open a door to every citizen to enter Parliament.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that what he and others on the Conservative side of the House had felt somewhat keenly in their experience was that in their candidature they were confronted with an expenditure of hidden wealth by the Party opposite. This matter of election officers' expenses did not apply alone to Parliamentary elections. AIL increasing burden was thrown year by year on those who took an active part in municipal elections, There was a growing opinion that the expense involved in county council and borough elections had become so great that it should be borne by the public at large rather than by the candidates It was idle to think that this was a Party question. His hon. friend near him had shewn that this was a matter which had developed as education had developed, and that there was now a keener interest taken in all elections than was formerly the case. His own opinion was that the cost of the elections should not be thrown on the candidates or on the local authorities, but that the burden should be put upon the people as a whole.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that he had considerable experience in electioneering matters, and he would like to express his view to the House. The debate had been marked by great unanimity, and he did not propose to utter a discordant note. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the resolution had chosen a most appropriate time for doing so, because hon. Members had had recent experience of the payment of election expenses, and were therefore in a frame of mind to listen with a favourable ear to the eloquent appeal which had been made to them. The hon. Member had pointed out that he desired a clear issue on this matter, and had therefore put down his Motion in a form of words not associated with any other question. The hon. Member was wise, for there were Gentlemen who sympathised with him in his Motion, but who would not have given that sympathy if it had been associated with the subject of payment of Members. Then the hon. Member in drafting his Resolution stated that the charges were to be cast on public funds; he did not ask the House to say that they were to be cast on the rates. He himself was in favour of a Motion of this character, but he could not support it if it was proposed to cast returning officers' charges on the rates. He was one of those who thought that the rates already imposed an intolerable burden on the ratepayers, and therefore he contended that the burden of these charges should fall on the Imperial taxes, more especially as the candidates sought to be elected to the Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division had used somewhat harsh language in regard to the returning officers, and talked about candidates being fleeced. He himself had had a more happy experience than some hon. Members seemed to have had, for although he represented a county with 16,000 electors he had no grievance against his returning officer for the charges he had made. He thought that too much had been made of the cry in regard to bogus candidates. He did not think any large number would be forthcoming; but if the House came to the conclusion that those charges should be placed on Imperial funds, it
  404
  might be necessary to ask the candidates to put down a substantial sum in the way of caution money which might be forfeited if it was found that the candidature was a frivolous one. That would meet the objection which many Members held and prevent candidates coming forward for the mere purpose of advertisement. As to the second part of the Motion, he thought that some reduction in the charges could easily be made. Though he was not sure that it would be possible or desirable to reduce in a large degree the fee of the returning officer there was no doubt that some of the other charges were excessive. For instance, there was the outrageous charge of seven guineas for fitting up a polling booth, and a charge for hiring ballot boxes. There were also other charges which might have been reasonable at the time the Act was passed, but which were now shewn to be excessive. The returning officer himself had very anxious and responsible duties to perform. He was responsible for the expenses of both the candidates, if the election was found to be invalid. A returning officer was recently mulcted in the sum of £4,000 because the printers employed failed to deliver the ballot papers in time for the opening of the poll. This showed that there must be a responsible man chosen as returning officer and that it was reasonable that he should have a fair and reasonable fee. But there were many charges which ought to be reduced. The local elections to which we had become accustomed since the Act of 1875 were carried on for lower fees. These included elections for parish council, district councils, and county councils, He should like to see more machinery for voting, in the shape of polling stations, placed at the disposal of the electors than was afforded at the present moment. If the electors were given the privilege of voting, they ought to b3 enabled to exercise it without travelling long distances. This subject might be said not to be cognate to the discussion on the Resolution, but he thought it was, because if they reduced official expenses of elections—and now a competent presiding officer could be obtained for much less than four guineas—there would be less objection to an extension of the number of polling stations which was

  405
  much desired. He would conclude by expressing his opinion in favour of the Resolution, though he could not support it if an extra charge was placed on the rates.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said he was sure they had all listened to the right hon. Gentleman with pleasure, because they were anxious to have some authoritative statement from the Opposition on a subject upon which the House appeared to be unanimous. A caustic historian had said that the House of Commons was never so absolutely wrong as when it was absolutely unanimous. They might, he thought, retort that it was never so absolutely right as when it was unanimous. They might regard without suspicion the unanimity which had characterised this debate. The difficulty of dealing with the Motion arose from the fact that it was almost impossible to discover any argument against it. Allusion had been made to the desirability of demanding some money qualification from the candidates for membership of the House. That system would not even have the advantage of the old property qualification, which guarded in some measure access to this House, as it demanded that the candidates should be possessed of land or heritable property. The theory was that then the candidate possessed a stake in the country and that in the Member who possessed a stake in the country they had a patriot. But the requirement that candidates should find a certain sum of money did not ensure their having what was called a stake in the country, because their money might be derived from some other country. There seemed to be a tendency in these matters to revert to old constitutional methods. The Motion had some historic interest, because in olden days a constituency, in order to obey the writ issued to it, had not only to secure the return of a Member, but to bear the cost of his maintenance while he discharged his duty to his constituents. In later times candidates became volunteers and offered inducements to constituencies to elect them. Now there was a tendency to return to the earlier idea that the duty of the constituency was to provide for its
  406
  own representation, and that the cost incident to that provision should fall upon the area which sought representation, and, in obedience to the writ, provided it. A good deal had been said as to the amount of the expenses cast upon candidates under the existing law. It was not unimportant to observe that the schedule which determined the amount of the expenses was now entirely out of date. In 1872 the Ballot Act was an experiment, and it was thought that the machinery in connection with the Act could only be worked with very high-class professional assistance. Now the services of competent officials might undoubtedly be obtained at a very much lower rate of remuneration. Even, therefore, if the question whether any expenses should be cast upon the candidate were not dealt with, there would be a strong case for entirely altering the schedule. But if the burden were cast upon the constituencies, he thought the constituencies would take care that unnecessary expenditure was not incurred. He would suggest to the House that the true way of approaching the Motion was to approach it constitutionally—to consider that if the duty rested on the constituency to secure its Parliamentary representation, the expenses incurred in the discharge of that duty should be borne by the area represented. That duty was already recognised in connection with local government. Logically the burden was a local burden, and ought to be borne locally. But that need not prevent the House taking a course similar to that which it had taken in other instances, and making a grant in aid of local taxation to an amount equivalent to the burden cast upon the local area. If the matter were made a local burden the expenses would be kept to as low a limit as possible. He did not know that it was necessary to discuss the question of the undesirable candidate, but a fine might be exacted or there might be a second ballot. That, however, was a matter for future consideration. At any rate it was clear that the machinery which it was proposed to abolish ought not to be used for dealing with the matter. The Motion was regarded with the utmost sympathy by the Government, and he did not use the

  407
  phrase in any emotional sense; by sympathy he meant practical sympathy.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: Will there be a Bill this year?
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I was just going to deal with that question. Perhaps my right hon. friend will think there are sufficient measures indicated in the King's Speech for this session.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: The reason I asked the question was that a similar measure was brought forward before and not proceeded with.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: A dissolution followed immediately.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid his right hon. friend would remember Mr. Bright's warning about trying to get too many omnibuses through Temple Bar, and there was no need to add to the measures which the Government had undertaken to pass. There was no immediate necessity with regard to this reform. [An HON. MEMBER: By-elections.] There might be a few by-elections, but the grievance in regard to them was relatively small. The main grievance was connected with general elections. The House might, without taking any very sanguine view with regard to the life of the Government, come to the conclusion that there was sufficient time for the measure to take the shape of a Bill and be submitted to the House.
  SIR CARNE RASCH (Essex, Chelmsford)said he had some little experience in this case which might possibly interest the House. Some time ago he contested South East Essex against Mr. W. H. Wills—that gentleman was a peer now, but he could not remember his name, they fought the bill of the returning officer, and the judge, His Honour Judge Abdy, knocked off 200 guineas. He did not blame the returning officer, whose own charges were fair and correct. They did not get all the money, because the lawyers got most of it, but they got more
  408
  than the returning officer. If hon. Members opposite were to take the bull by the horns and put their fists in the face of the enemy they would do better than they did in present circumstances. Candidates were required to pay 5s. for the use for twenty-four hours of each of the wretched old biscuit-boxes into which the ballot papers were put, whilst if the whole lot were sold they would not fetch a sovereign with the returning: officer thrown in. Another expensive item was the furnishing of the polling booth, which meant placing two chairs and a table in a wretched rabbit-hutch, where the intelligent voter put his cross generally against the wrong man. The cost of these was four or five guineas, while the value would not be 10s. All these things were relics of the time when a candidate was regarded by half the constituents as a milch cow and by the other half as a public enemy. He was glad the hon. Member had brought this question forward, and if he went to a division he should vote with him.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the Returning Officers' Expenses, and all other official charges in connection with Parliamentary Elections, should be defrayed out of public funds, and that a material reduction is possible in the present scale of charges allowed under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Expenses Act, 1875.—(Mr. Rowlands.)

THE CHARITY COMMISSION.
SIR WALTER FOSTERrose to call attention to the schemes of the Charity Commissioners; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, schemes of the Charity Commissioners for the reform, new constitution, or amendment of trust deeds of charities other than ecclesiastical charities should in all cases provide for the removal of disabilities of trustees in respect of their religious opinions, and for the election of a majority of the trustees by representative authorities." He said that a Select Committee which sat twenty years ago arrived at the conclusion that it was exceedingly desirable, in order to

409
create public confidence in the administration of the charities, that the representative element should be fully recognised in all schemes of the Charity Commissioners for the ordering of charities in the future. After the report of that Committee, which was generally accepted as satisfactory, people looked forward to this rule being observed, and he believed that in many instances the Commissioners had endeavoured to carry it out. There had, however, from time to time been glaring instances when opportunities of doing away with the disabilities in regard to the old-fashioned office of trustee had been neglected in the formation of schemes. The Select Committee said that in all cases of the constitution of I trustees it was desirable that as the administration of charitable trusts had not the stimulus of private interests at work they should have as the best available substitute direct official responsibility to the inhabitants of the district. That was the only way to insure that they got a perfect and unbiassed administration of public funds. He had called attention to this subject before, and, although he was then speaking to a House of Commons composed largely of Members of the present Opposition, he was beaten by a majority of only twenty-five when the normal Government majority was 130, which showed that that House was not very hostile to his contention in this matter. He on that occasion called attention to the scheme which dealt with the Hospital of St. Cross at Winchester, in regard to which the Charity Commissioners had neglected to provide for the representative principle. This institution came down from the middle ages and provided pensions for old people from various parts of the country. Under a scheme of the Charity Commissioners the only elected trustee was to be a member of the Town Council and they coupled with that the condition that he should be a member of the Church of England. This was a humiliating and degrading condition, as the charity was open to those professing all religious creeds. Moreover, a Mayor of Winchester, who was a Nonconformist had under this regulation been debarred from taking part in the administration of this charity. That condition ought to be abolished by some Resolution of the House
410
and, if necessary, by an Act of Parliament to prevent such invidious distinction being made in the future. He felt it his duty in 1901 to bring this matter before the House and to argue that the principle of administering these schemes should be as far as possible to introduce the representative element, and he put this Resolution on the Paper to-day because he wanted the Charity Commissioners in drawing up such schemes in the future to pay more attention to the recommendations of the Select Committee to which he had referred. It was desirable in the public administration of these charities that public men—representatives of various public bodies—in the districts should have a voice in the administration of these public funds. He admitted that in some respects the Charity Commissioners were in a difficult position, and the hon. Member for the Elland Division would probably say there were legal difficulties in the way of carrying out this Resolution. In the first place charities over the value of £50 did not come under the Charity Commissioners except at the request of the trustees who might apply to the Commissioners to alter or modify their scheme. In such a case it seemed to him that the Commissioners might very well say to trustees that if they had the trouble of drawing up a scheme and making various alterations for the benefit of the charity and to ease the labours of the trustees, they on the other hand must give some concession and enable the Commissioners to make the scheme more popular. It was surely out of date that the old system of coopted Members should be kept up. Personally, such Members might be estimable gentlemen, but they lacked the virtue which only came from a representative capacity. He had known charities with huge incomes mismanaged and used for private ends because there had been only coopted trustees, The principle of cooptation had been tried, and had failed in the experience of all men who had to do with public; institutions, and it ought not to be I continued in the administration of these E charities. He wanted the Charity Commissioners of the future to do away; as thoroughly as they could with the

411
principle of cooptation, and to introduce the sweetening influence in the administration of these charities of electing men who belonged to representative bodies in the localities. In addition to that he would like to see the Charity Commissioners do away with those mediaeval restrictions in regard to the religious views of those who administered a public charity. He did not wish to interfere with charities concerning a religious persuasion, but there ought to be no restrictions as to a man's religion when appointed a trustee on other charitable bodies, and on these grounds he urged this Resolution to the favourable consideration of the House. It might be said that if they interfered too much with these schemes the Charity Commissioners might lay themselves open to legal proceedings. He would rather see that than take no steps in the right direction, because he believed a few such proceedings would awaken public opinon to the gravity of this abuse, and would soon bring about necessary legislation to prevent the Charity Commissioners from being so harassed in the execution of their public duty. He did not think they in the new House of Commons, filled with a new spirit, and passing resolutions almost of a revolutionary character, such as had been done this evening and on previous occasions this session, ought to hesitate in taking a step such as he asked to-night in order to widen the bounds of liberty in the choice of trustees for the administration of public funds, and do away with restrictions which were out of date with regard to the religion of a man who managed funds for the benefit of his fellow-citizens.
MR. GODDARDseconded the Resolution. He said it was difficult to conceive of any real objection to the Resolution. It used to be said in regard to these charities that such charities belonged to the Church of England and therefore all the trustees should belong to the Church of England. He submitted that that was quite an obsolete contention in the present day, and the practice in all modernised charity schemes had been to open the door so that a much more representative body of trustees could be appointed, representative not merely of public opinion and of the
412
public interest, but representative also of the various religious denominations who took just as much interest in these charities as did the particular churches with whom it might have been they originated. It used to be contended that the recipients of the charities which would be affected by the Resolution were compelled to attend services of the Church of England, but he was sure every hon. Member must know very well that there were a great many charity schemes now where the recipients still had to attend services of the Church of England in order to receive the charity, but where the trustees were not necessarily members of the Church of England. He himself a year or two ago was elected to be chairman of a board of charity trustees, although he was a Nonconformist, and all the recipients of this charity had to attend the Church of England in order to receive the special gifts. He thought it was time that this sort of practice should be done away with. There might have been a reason for it originally. No doubt in olden time the church door was the easiest place for the distribution of doles and charities given under these schemes, but the time had now come when all such barriers of intolerance might be swept away, and when the representation on public charities should include every part of the community.
Motion proposed, "That in the opinion of this House, schemes of the Charity Commissioners for the reform, new constitution, or amendment of trust deeds of charities, other than ecclesiastical charities, should in all cases provide for the removal of disabilities of trustees in respect of their religious opinions, and for the election of a majority of the trustees by representative authorities."—(Sir Walter Foster.)
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he ventured to say a few words in opposition to this Resolution, which might be characterised as dangerous and ill-considered. He took it that the desire of the House would be to encourage rather than to discourage people of a philanthropic turn of

413
mind in giving and leaving their money to charitable purposes. Such a Motion as this must deter, he imagined, the vast majority of those who left their money for philanthropic purposes from doing anything of the kind, for the majority of those people left and gave their money from religious motives, and not from motives unconnected with any sectarian body. Take, for example, one of the greater philanthropic bequests in London, the Polytechnic. When the late Mr. Quintin Hogg left his money for that object he was not actuated in any way by any feelings of love or affection for the Church of England, and he might have objected to any member of the Church of England being on the governing body. He did not make such a stipulation, but he might have made it well within his rights, and what right would the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution have to say it was public money? It was not public money, but was left by an individual for a particular purpose, and who was actuated by a particular motive. Were they to have a trust of that kind governed, forsooth, not by men who had put their hands in their pockets, but by representatives of local bodies? He ventured to suggest that this was a dangerous and unfair Motion. He would turn to various other institutions in London which had done unmixed good to the community; he referred especially to the institutions founded by the public schools and universities of this land. Was it to be said that the people who had gone to great sacrifice to find money in aid of one particular Church or sect were to be told that they were not to have the right of nominating the trustees, that what the mover of the Resolution described as mediaeval distinctions were to be swept away; that the question of whether a man was an atheist or a religious man was to be wiped away, and that the control was to be left to a local body in the district where the charity happened to be situated? Such a Motion was unjust and unfair in the ex-
414
treme. The hon. Member who seconded the Resolution was a religious philanthropist, and had founded a certain institution in Ipswich which certainly had done most excellent work; but how would the hon. Gentleman like a Churchman and a Conservative to be put upon the governing body of that particular charity? Surely the person who paid the piper was entitled to call the tune; and if any one were philanthropic enough to give money, by will or in his lifetime, to found any particular charity, he had sufficient confidence in this Parliament, in spite of what the mover of the Resolution said about the new spirit, to distinguish between what belonged to them and what belonged to somebody else. This Motion was not only unjust and revoluntionary, but absolutely dishonest in its effect, as tending to take away from people that which was their own, and it would not be for the public good, as it would discourage people who were anxious to give their money for philanthropic purposes.
MR. RAINYsaid that whatever the intentions of the Motion were, the question it raised was, how far the power of the dead hand was to govern the liberties of the living people It was very obvious that if certain monies were received, say for university settlements, it would be very improper for any outside person to interfere with them; but the proposition was that if the people he was referring to were to go to the Charity Commissioners to get powers to do something which they could not themselves do, they departed from the original trust, and the question should be decided in accordance with common sense and common justice. There was a remarkable instance during the last Parliament of how strict legality might do gross injustice not only in the case of a corporation but over the length and breadth of a great nation, and that nation was still

415
suffering from the processes of law. Therefore he was not content to sit still to-night and not protest against the idea that any man, however rich, benevolent, or clever, might dispose of that which was really the property of the State. His proposition was that no person, however far-seeing, could foresee the conditions in which ultimately his money must be applied. In the process of time all trusts must lapse, and when a trust lapsed it was forfeited to the Crown and became the property of the State. He could quite understand that if there was no guiding principle laid down by this House or by those responsible in these matters, it was a most difficult business for the Charity Commissioners, with all the problems which came before them. He was not disposed to criticise harshly any action they had taken, but he did want to protest against the idea that any test of a sectarian nature was necessarily a religious test. It was one of the most pernicious doctrines prevalent in England that any one who did not agree altogether with the Church of England was a non-religious person. For his part, he refused to circumscribe the kingdom of Christ within the limits of the Church of England, or any other particular body of Christians. A remark fell from the hon. Gentleman who last spoke that they might destroy religion by broadening the basis of a charity in such a fashion that the Christians of this country might have a common share in it.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he never mentioned anything of the kind. The whole basis of his argument was that those who left charities, for instance to Nonconformist religious bodies, were entitled to have that intention respected, and the same argument would apply to Jews, or Roman Catholics, or whatever religion they chose.
MR. RAINYsaid the remark just made by the hon. Gentleman brought
416
out exactly what he wanted to call attention to. The hon. Gentleman talked about his Church as a religion, and all other Christian Churches as other religions. It was not so. There was one Christian community.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that surely the hon. Gentleman had not so argued. He had said distinctly that each member of each religious body was entitled to leave his money as he thought fit to members of a particular religious body. He (Mr. Rawlinson) did not even mention the fact that he was a member of the Church of England, although he was one.
MR. RAINYsaid his argument was that in so far as both the Church of England and Nonconformists were common to the Christian religion it was not necessarily an inherent lapse of trust if a property left to one or the other passed from one body to the other. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] Well, he would not press the point, as it seemed to be a matter of contention. The matter he wished to come to was that if there was a way of carrying out the original intention of the donor in its completeness the attempt should be made, but when it became apparent, as it had in many cases, that this was impossible, what was merely accidental should not rule the whole trust, but the intentions of general benevolence should prevail, and there should be a constitution whereby those who were the living representatives, who could alone benefit under the trust, should have a voice to decide what should be done with that which was left for their benefit and on their behalf.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he wished to confine his remarks almost entirely to educational charities. He desired, however, to express regret that such pointed allusions should have been made in preceding speeches to the Church

417
of England. Those who made those remarks entirely forgot that there were large Nonconformist institutions in existence. In his old university-town of Cambridge, for instance, there was a splendid institution under the management of the Wesleyan body—the Leys Schools. It would be little less than a scandal and an outrage if in the event of any alteration in the scheme governing that institution it should be liable to the provisions of this Resolution. It would be practically confiscation. That was by no means the only school in the hands of the Wesleyan body. There were such schools in Yorkshire and other counties, and the remark he made in reference to the Leys School would apply to them also. Speaking as an educationist, he respectfully differed from the adverse remarks as to co-opted trustees. He was a member of important grammar schools under the management of a scheme framed by the Endowed Schools Charity Commission. There were co-opted members, and he ventured to say that their services were equal in value to the services of the most intelligent and assiduous members. One great advantage in co-option was that when a vacancy occurred the other trustees knew what was the real element in their body. The gentleman must be some one cognisant with the management of real estate, and he would look round amongst his acquaintances, and find a man best suited to act for him. He felt quite sure that no election by an outside body would meet the difficulty.
SIR WALTER FOSTERpointed out that educational trusts did not come under the Charity Commissioners and, therefore, they were not affected by his Resolution. ["Yes, they do."]
MR. SPEAKER: Educational charities would come under this Resolution. The only charities which would be
418
excluded would be those which come within the four corners of the Endowed Schools Acts. There are a great many educational charities which are not under the Endowed Schools Acts, but they would all come under the Resolution of the hon. Member.
SIR FRANCIS POWELL: Surely, they would never suggest that such schools should be governed on the principle of popular election; it would be impossible to work a great grammar school, for instance, upon such lines. Then there were schools for persons suffering under some kind of infirmity, such as the Blind School in Manchester, Such institutions were maintained by voluntary subscriptions and how could they claim that they should be placed under a popularly elected Board? The same argument applied to hospitals. If the House examined this proposal closely they would find difficulties upon every side. Nobody denied the necessity of changing trustees from time to time, but it did not follow that all the principles upon which charities were founded should be abolished and everything sent to the wind. This Resolution was of a sweeping character and carried everything before it, and if adopted he felt sure it would produce an amount of embarrassment which the framers had not contemplated, and it would do a great amount of injury to charities, more especially to those of an educational character.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that this resolution had come upon him at a rather early stage of his connection with the Charity Commissioners, but he was glad that the question had been raised so soon in the existence of the present Parliament. He reminded hon. Members that the Charity Commissioners were not armed with arbitrary powers of interfering with any charity at any time, and providing schemes for any

419
charity out of their own brains. That was not exactly their position, for their action was circumscribed in various ways. They were bound to consider the wishes of the pious founders, though they had also to modernise those wishes and intentions. The proposals of his hon. friend had, he thought, been the subject of misconception on the Opposition side. They related to charities which were non-ecclesiastical, and it undoubtedly was the desire of the Commissioners in those cases where there was no apparent object in the trust in having people of a particular denomination upon it to open the position of trustee to people of all denominations. But they could not in all cases undertake to override the express wishes of the founder if the latter had chosen deliberately to leave the charity to the administration of men likeminded to himself. He was told that as a matter of fact there were few such cases among non-ecclesiastical charities. He hoped his hon. friend would be satisfied with the assurance that the object of the Commissioners would be, so far as was legal and reasonable, to remove such limitations. He would now pass on to what he thought was the more important part of the Resolution, and that was the representation of public bodies such as borough or parish councils on boards of trustees under new schemes. He had been gathering information with regard to the action of the Charity Commissioners during the last few years, and in most of the schemes representative trustees were included to strengthen the boards, and in many of them the representative trustees were in an actual majority. He would say frankly that his own sympathies were strongly in favour of as large a representative element as possible. There were obvious
420
advantages from adopting this principle, because close corporations were never desirable, and indifference very often followed in consequence of the methods of management not being scrutinised by representatives of public bodies, and, therefore, it was in the interests of those charities that there should be public representation. No doubt if the founders of the oldest of these charities had lived in these days they would have had recourse to public bodies as being the best means of finding out who were the important citizens most suited to administer their charity. It would be the continued policy of the Commissioners to give an increasing share of consideration to the claims of public bodies. But it could not always be done. The Charity Commissioners were not all powerful people, and he thought legislation might be required to carry out what was now proposed. The Commissioners generally waited until trustees expressed a wish that they should interfere, and it was only in very flagrant cases where the Commissioners originated their interference. With smaller charities they were sometimes able to do that, and the Commissioners had exercised a compulsory jurisdiction at times. They had, however, no power to exercise original jurisdiction over charities with an income of more than £50 a year, and in such cases the trustees had to come to the Charity Commissioners if they wished them to take action. Consequently it was part of the policy of the Charity Commission not to lay down any cast-iron rule, which might deter such applications in cases where they had no compulsory jurisdiction. The Charity Commissioners desired an extension of their powers, so that larger charities might come within their scope. If the

421
Resolution were amended by the insertion of the word "possible," so that it would read "in all possible cases," he would not be so averse to it as he was in the form it at present stood.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I will accept the suggestion of my hon. friend to insert the word "possible." My Resolution is intended to be a direction rather than a command.
Amendment agreed to.
COLONEL LEGGEthought that neither the Mover of the Resolution nor the hon. Member representing the Charity Commissioners understood the effect of the Resolution, and, therefore, it ought to be withdrawn. It was not treating the House with proper respect to bring the Resolution forward in this way, and the best course would be for the right hon. Member to take his Resolution back, remodel it, and bring it forward again in a new form.
SIR EDWARD CLARKEjoined in the protest which had been made against the course which had been taken by the hon. Member for Elland. He understood the speech made made by the representative of the Charity Commissioners was one directed against the Resolution as it stood on the Paper, which he said was quite unacceptable because it appeared to pledge the House to direct the Commissioners to do that which they could not by law obey. The Resolution was now to be altered by putting in the word "possible." He wished to point out what an absurdity that alteration was. It could not be suggested that the original Resolution
422
was intended to apply to all cases possible and impossible. The word "possible" was implied in the original Resolution, and now it was contended that the insertion of this magic word would alter the Resolution so much that it at once became acceptable to the representative of the Charity Commissioners. Really, the Resolution was an absurdity on the face of it. The Commissioners could only be called upon to act in certain important cases, and when they were called upon by the trustees to deal with a charity it was on the ground that in certain respects the provisions of the trust had become inapplicable to existing circumstances, and then the duty of the Charity Commissioners was to draw up a scheme which should be as nearly as possible the former and original scheme, only altering it where it was absolutely necessary. The Charity Commissioners had no further right than that. The hon. Member who moved this Resolution said its effect might be that there would be some action taken in Chancery, and he thought that would be a good thing, and would be very useful. He thought so too from many points of view, but until the law was different from what it was to-day those who wished to institute experiments with regard to the power of the Charity Commissioners would only find that the Court was obliged to decide against them over and over again, and no matter how many actions were brought the result would be the same. Under these circumstances, surely it was unreasonable to ask the House to pledge itself in this very odd way to a Resolution which could have no operative effect at all, which had been shown by the representative of the Charity Commissioners in this House to be inapplicable to the circumstances as they at present

423
existed, and which did not appear to be understood by the hon. Member who moved it.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the hon. Member who represented the Charity Commissioners had stated that, if those pious founders who lived years ago, and left money to institutions connected with religion, to be distributed by people belonging to the same religion as themselves, had lived in the present day, the probability was that instead of leaving as trustees of their charity permanent boards consisting of members of their own religious bodies, they would have consulted the local municipal authorities to find out who were the most suitable people to administer their charities. Personally, he had not heard of many instances himself of people with charitable intentions leaving their money to borough or parish councils to be administered for charitable purposes, and he could not believe that the people whose charities were aimed at by the Resolution were in any doubt as to their intentions in leaving their money. He did not think the mover of this Resolution had made out any case of hardship under the present law. He had mentioned one case in which the Mayor of Winchester was disqualified on account of his religious opinions, but he did not allege that in consequence of that disqualification the particular charity to which he referred was badly administered. The hon. Member for Ilkeston, according to his own confession, did not realise the scope of his Resolution, and therefore he would ask him not to press it now, but to take time to consider the exact nature of the proposal which he intended to move. The seconder of the Resolution stated that the intention of the Resolution
424
was to take money belonging to the Church of England and give it to others to distribute. No doubt many people were interested in money which did not belong to them, but that was no reason why they should be allowed to administer it.
And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS).
Address for "Return showing, with respect to the United States of America and the countries of Europe, whether payment of Members of the Legislature obtains; the amounts or scale of such payment; and whether it includes, or whether there is in addition thereto, any allowance for travelling expenses or the privilege of free passes on the railways of those countries."—(Mr. John Ward.)
REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th March; Mr. D. A. Thomas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 79.]

PARLIAMENT (MEETING &c.).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th March; Mr. D. A. Thomas]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 80.]
Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.