Commons Sitting of 22 July 1907

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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 Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders

  1125
  which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  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, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  London and North Western Railway Bill; Penrith Urban District Council Bill; Worthing Gas Bill.— Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Alton Military Hospital Bill [Lords]; Electric Supply Corporation Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Sheffield Corporation Bill [Lords].— Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords]; Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Oxford and District Tramways Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill—Read the third time, and passed.
  Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).—Read the third time and passed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
  Mr. Arthur Stanleyreported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the
  1126
  Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of Arthur Caradoc Williams, Acting Conservator of the River Dee, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Arthur Caradoc Williams do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That the said Arthur Caradoc Williams do attend the said Committee on Group K of Private Bills To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice Bill [Lords].—Reported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to: Limited Partnerships Bill; British North America Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders, made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Fleetwood, Portsmouth, and Sennen." [Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

PETITIONS.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Clerkenwell and other places; and, Newcastle-on-Tyne and other places; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3862 to 3867 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copies presented, of Seven Orders in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Order in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, providing that Buckie shall be a place of registry for Sea Fishing Boats [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACTS, 1870 TO 1906.
  Copies presented, of Orders in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, (1) for giving effect to a Supplementary Convention between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Belgium for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals; (2) for giving effect to an Agreement concluded between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals; (3) ordering that the operation of the Extradition Acts, 1870 to 1906, shall be suspended within the Dominion of Canada so long as Part I. of Chapter 155 of The Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, shall continue in force [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Orders in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, (1) providing for the Government of Cyprus; (2) entitled The Ashanti Order in" Council, 1907; (3) entitled The Northern Territories Order in Council, 1907; (4) entitled The Nyasaland Order in Council, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BRITISH SETTLEMENTS ACT, 1887, AND FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of Orders in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, entitled: (1) The Pacific Order in Council. 1907; (2) The Pacific Islands Civil Marriages Order in Council, 1907 [by Act]: to lie upon the Table,

  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Copies presented, of Orders in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, approving Memorials of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying sanction to:
  1128
  (1) An Amendment of the Regulations so as to provide that officers appointed to a surveying ship commissioned at Home for service Abroad shall draw-surveying pay from the date of joining the ship; (2) the payment of certain allowances to Naval and Marine officers studying Chinese in China: (3) certain modifications in the conditions of service of officers' servants; (4) a new scale of allowances to lamp-trimmers on board His Majesty's ships [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACT. 1865.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council, dated 6th July, 1907, authorising a higher scale of salary for the Director of Greenwich Hospital [by Act]; to lie. upon the Table.
  CONGESTION IN IRELAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Fifth Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of the Acts dealing with Congestion in Ireland, with Appendix (Minutes of Evidence taken in London. 12th to 28th March, and Documents relating thereto) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR,
  Return ordered, "showing as far as possible, for each of the years 1887 to 1906, inclusive, the estimated production of cane and beet sugar, respectively, in the various producing countries of the world; the imports and exports of raw and refined sugar, distinguishing beet and other sorts, into and from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Holland, the United States, Canada, and Australia, from and to the principal countries of origin and destination; the total consumption and consumption per head of the population of each of the above-named countries; and the exports of sugar of domestic production from each of the principal British Colonies and Possessions, together with the average declared import value of raw and refined sugar for the United Kingdom (in continuation of similar particulars contained in Parliamentary Paper, No. 353, of Session 1888)."— (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
  IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADE (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports during the year ended 31st December, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH RAILWAYS (VICEREGAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of First Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS).
  Copy presented, of Administrative Report on the Railways in India for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OSBORNE.
  Copy presented, of Report by the House Governor and Medical Superintendent at Osborne for the year ending 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1907–8).
  Estimate presented, of the Further Sums required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 263.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Bass Rock Valuation.
  Mr. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland with reference to the valuation for rating at £31 a year of the house and land at Canty Bay, including the Bass Rock, how much of that valuation is attributable to the house and land at Canty Bay and how much to the Bass Rock; whether that valuation now includes the portion of the Bass Rock which has been feued by the Northern Lights Commissioners; and, if that portion of the Bass Rock is valued separately, what is the amount of such valuation.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am unable to say how much of the valuation is attributable to the Bass Rock and how
  1130
  much to the remainder of the holding. The ground feued to the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners is not included in the sum mentioned by my hon. friend. The lighthouse does not appear on the roll.

  Naval Medical Inspections.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty by whose authority the monthly medical inspection of crews belonging to torpedo boats and destroyers is carried out on board the parent ships at home parts; for what reason was it initiated, and could instructions be issued so that all chief petty officers, when undergoing or preparing for this inspection, may have screened off for their separate use places apart from that used by seamen and stokers.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) (1) By the direction of the Admiralty in 1904. (2) It was found that in many cases men suffering from disease when drafted to destroyers did not present themselves for treatment until absolutely unable to continue duty. It was to prevent the consequent aggravation and spread of disease, and to ensure early medical treatment, that the monthly medical inspection was instituted. (3) Directions were given by the Admiralty in 1906 that petty officers should be treated with every consideration in the matter of this medical examination. When attending with men they are to be seen first. If required to strip, facilities are to be afforded for them to do so in privacy. The ports were informed at the same time that it was desirable that each petty officer and man, when stripped, should be examined separately.

  Training Colleges.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the names of the local education authorities proposing to establish training colleges, and the accommodation to be afforded in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Schemes for the provision of ten training colleges have been received from local education

  1131
  authorities, and are now under consideration by the Board. In seven other cases the provision of a college is known to be under discussion by the local authority, but no definite proposals have been submitted to the Board. Inasmuch as many of these schemes are in a very early stage of preparation, and in some cases the Board have been requested by the local authority to regard the information as confidential for financial reasons, I am unable at present to give the names of the authorities concerned.

  Irish Estate Duty.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in the case of the estate of William Humphrys, de ceased, which comprises lands agreements for the sale of which to the tenants have been made under the Irish Land Act of 1903 but not completed, the Secretary of Estates Duties in Ireland has refused to accept payment of the estate duty by instalments; and whether, seeing that the person succeeding to this property is only receiving interest on the purchase money pending the completion of the sale, he will consent to a delay of the payment of the estate duty in full until the purchase money is paid over by the Land Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Com missioners of Inland Revenue have discretion, under Section 8, Sub-section 9, of The Finance Act, 1894, where they are satisfied that the estate duty leviable in respect of any property cannot without excessive sacrifice be raised at once, to allow payment to be postponed for such period, to such extent, and on payment of such interest not exceeding 4 per cent. or any higher interest yielded by the property, and on such terms as the Commissioners think fit. Any representations which may be made to the Com missioners in that sense, in the case to which the hon. Member refers, will receive careful consideration.

  Tea Duty in Ireland.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the average contribution per head of the
  1132
  population of Ireland towards the duty levied upon tea during the year ending 31st March, 1907, exceeded the average contribution of 2s. 6·72d. per head paid during this period by the population of the United Kingdom; and, if so, by how-much.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) It is estimated that the average contribution per head of the population of Ireland towards the duty paid on tea during the year ended 31st March, 1907, was 2s. 6· 20d., being ·52d. less than that paid per head of the population of the United Kingdom.

  Corn Duty.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue was obtained during the last twelve months that it was in operation from the 1s. a quarter registration duty on imported corn; how much of this revenue was derived from corn and flour imported from foreign countries, as apart from British possessions; and what was the average contribution per head of the population of the United Kingdom to war. Is the revenue obtained from imported foreign corn and flour during this period.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The net revenue obtained from the duty on corn, etc., during the twelve months ended 30th June, 1903, was £1,876,664, and of this sum it is estimated that £1,565,076 was derived from corn, etc., imported from foreign countries. The average contribution per head of the population of the United Kingdom towards the revenue obtained from imported foreign corn, etc., during the period is thus 8.86d.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of revenue collected upon the 73,658,936 cwts. of wheat and the 20,440,827 cwts. of wheat meal and flour, mentioned in the Annual Abstract of Trade [Cd. 3466] as having been imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries during the operation of the Corn Tax in 1902 and 1903; and what was the average annual contribution per head of the population of the United Kingdom towards this revenue.

  1133
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The estimated net revenue collected upon wheat and wheat flour imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries between the 15th April, 1902, and the 30th June, 1903, inclusive, was as follows—

  £

  Wheat

  787,829

  Wheat flour

  379,436

  The average annual contribution per head of the population of the United Kingdom towards this revenue was—

  Wheat

  3.70d.

  Wheat flour

  1.78d.

  Indian Rupee Coinage.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the amount of silver rupees coined during 1906 on which the seignorage profit of £4,000,000 sterling was realised; and the average price per ounce at which the metal was purchased.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) In the financial year 1906–7 (in which a net profit of £4,000,000 was realised on the coinage of rupees) the number of rupees coined, excluding the recoinage of old rupees, was 227,670,000 (i.e., 22 crores 76¾lakhs=£15,180,000). The aver age price per ounce at which silver was purchased during the year was 31·332 pence.

  Plague Inoculation in India.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether inoculation for the plague continues to be practised in India in general and the Punjab in particular.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) In all provinces inoculation is offered to the people, and is performed free of charge by the district medical staff. In the Punjab of late it has been accepted by increasing numbers. In April last over 21,000 persons were inoculated in that province. The extent to which the remedy is used must necessarily rest with the people themselves, as no one is inoculated against his will.

  Irish School Building Grants.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of the new annual grant of £40,000 for school buildings in Ireland falling short of the demands upon it, and where the local parties in poor districts are raising money for enlargements of non-vested schools, building class-rooms, or making other structural improvements, the Commissioners of Education will be empowered to make grants out of the £40,000 to assist local parties when such assistance is needed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The £40,000 alluded to in the Question is provided for the building and improvement of vested school houses. No provision is made for the building and improvement of non-vested school houses, and consequently the Commissioners of National Education have no power to make grants in such cases. Loans, however, are made for the erection, enlargement, or improvement of non-vested school houses.

  Kilmeedy School, Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what has been the average number of children in daily attendance for the last twelve months in the boys' and girls' schools, respectively, at Kilmeedy, in County Limerick; what has been the tenor of the inspectors' reports for the last three years on these schools; in what category, excellent, very good, good, fair, have these schools been placed by the Commissioners of National Education; has either of them got any special distinction for efficiency, and, if so, what is that distinction; and whether it is with a view to the further efficiency of these schools or on grounds of thrift that the Treasury overrides the judgment of the Commissioners of National Education, and insists that they shall be maintained in their pre sent unsatisfactory condition or broken up altogether and amalgamated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The average attendance at Kilmeedy boys' school

  1135
  during the twelve months ending 30th June last was thirty-nine, and at the girls' school sixty-two. The inspectors' reports upon both schools for the past three years were very favourable, and the schools were placed in categories ranging from good to excellent. In 1903 the principal teacher of the girls' school was awarded one of the Carlisle and Blake premiums, as being one of the most deserving teachers under the Board. I have already informed the hon. Member of the reason why the existing rule as to building grants for separate boys' and girls' schools must be maintained. The amalgamation of small schools in Ireland is considered to be a pressing necessity in the interests both of efficiency and of economy.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can supply an estimate of the ages of the evicted tenants whom it is proposed to replace upon the land and who have been described as having been out in the cold for over twenty-eight years, living in insanitary huts by the side of their old holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have no information which would enable me to make the estimate suggested in the Question.

  Tottenham Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an evicted farm at Aug-havanny, near Kiltyclogher, county Leitrim, on the Tottenham estate, from which a man named James Fox was evicted seven years ago, has been for a considerable time in the occupation of emergency men, who merely act as caretakers; whether the receiver of the estate, Mr. Maude, has expressed his readiness to reinstate Mr. Fox; and can he say what steps, if any, the Estates Commissioners have taken to restore this evicted tenant to his holding, which is now vacant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate to which the Question refers is for sale in the Land Judge's Court. The farm from
  1136
  which James Fox was evicted is in the possession of caretakers. The receiver of the estate informed Fox that if he should offer a fair price his re-instatement would be considered; but the offer made by Fox was considered inadequate. The Estates Commissioners are considering the question of making an offer for the purchase of the estate, and if they should acquire it they will deal with Fox's application for reinstatement.

  Mullagamore Fish-curing Station.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken recently to establish fish-curing stations on the sea coast of Sligo; and can he say when the promised station at Mullaghmore will be started.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board do not consider it necessary or desirable in the interests of the fishermen to establish fish-curing stations on the coast of Sligo. There are many buyers of fish on that roast, and the Board are of opinion that it would be to the disadvantage of the fishermen if the Board should enter into competition with the merchants and cause them to leave the district. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the Board promised to establish a curing station at Mullaghmore.

  Sligo Fishing Industry.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since 1892. the Congested Districts Board expended £66,626 on piers, slips, and harbour works in the six maritime congested districts counties in Ireland, and that only £735 of that sum was expended in Sligo on such works; whether he is aware that the development of the fishing industry along the seaboard of the county of Sligo had been rendered almost impossible owing to the want of piers, slips, and harbours; can he explain why the fishing industry in this county was so much neglected by the Congested Districts Board; and is he aware that a small pier, which was commenced some time ago at Ballyconnell, on the Magherow coast of county Sligo, remains

  1137
  in a half-finished condition, and that the work has been stopped.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The amounts stated to have been expended by the Congested Districts Board are correct, except that the Board are now constructing a landing-place at Knock-lane, county Sligo, at a cost of £300, of which sum they are providing £200. They have also issued eighty-two loans to Sligo fishermen amounting in all to £774. The Board have been unremitting in their attention to the wants of the fisheries on the coast of Sligo. The extent of seaboard is very small, and owing to the physical features of the coast, the fisheries must necessarily be of very limited value. At the last census the number of fishermen in county Sligo was only 167. It is not the fact that the Board commenced a pier at Ballyconnell. Their work at that place consisted in removing, at a cost of £141, some stones which were thrown up by the storm.

  United Irish League Officials and Evicted Farms.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will ascertain from the constabulary, in continuation of in formation given a few years ago on the same subject, the number of grazing farms and evicted farms held respectively by presidents and vice-presidents, secretaries, treasurers, and members of the committees of the United Irish League.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's similar Question on the 15th instant, namely, that the Government have no information on this subject and do not propose to make inquiries in the matter.

  Reinforced Concrete at Woolwich
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether reinforced concrete has been used by his Department for constructional purposes at Woolwich or elsewhere; and, if so, whether the work has been applied above ground or in foundations; whether it has given satisfaction; whether it has been found economical;
  1138
  whether the War Office have experienced any accidents in the execution of the work; and what is the date of the earliest instance of such work executed for his Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Reinforced concrete has been employed to a considerable extent in construction both at Woolwich Dockyard and at Woolwich Arsenal. This material has been made use of in foundations, in piling, and above ground, and is considered to be satisfactory and economical. No accidents have been experienced either during execution or since occupation. The first instance of its use there was in the construction of a storehouse at Woolwich Dockyard, erected between October, 1904, and September, 1905. In addition to the above reinforced con-concrete has been employed in the construction of a roof and stairway in Cairo in 1905, and was found economical and satisfactory.

  Yeomanry Arms.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has been arrived at respecting the re-arming of the Yeomanry; and whether they are to be armed with the sword and short rifle as in the Regular Cavalry.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) it is not at present contemplated to arm the Yeomanry with the sword. The short rifle and sword bayonet will be issued to them.

  Civil Service Pensions.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, if one man joins the Civil Service at the age of nineteen, and another joins the Army at the same age and obtains, on his discharge at the age of twenty-six, a Civil Service appointment, and both men, their total service to the State being equal, are superannuated at the age of sixty, the first man, whose service has been entirely civil, receives the maximum pension of forty-sixtieths of his total salary, while the other man, not being able to count his military service, receives only thirty-four sixtieths of his total salary; and, if this is so, whether, in view

  1139
  of the fact that the man who gives military service to the State undertakes far greater responsibilities and dangers, military service will be allowed to count towards pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. Baronet kindly refer to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a Question put on this subject on 15th May, by the hon. Member for Shoreditch?†

  St. Helena Police.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why only five native policemen are considered sufficient for the protection of St. Helena; and what special provision is made to deal with a possible insurrection.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The police force of St. Helena is adequate to deal with the small amount of petty crime which exists, and it is not thought necessary to make any special provision for dealing with such a contingency as that suggested.

  St. Helena Fortifications.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of sending the Cape or South American squadrons to St. Helena and using it as a training ground, and thus keeping the present fortifications, upon which hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent, and which would assist the Colony and prevent the buildings being ruined
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty have recently arranged for three ships proceeding to or from the Cape station to call at St. Helena. I have reason to believe these visits have assisted the Colony financially. I can, however, give no pledge as to the frequency of such visits in future, as they must depend upon naval requirements.

  St. Helena Farmers' Troubles.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any steps have been taken to compensate the farmers
  † See(4) Debates, clxxiv, 957.
  1140
  and landowners of St. Helena, who, acting on the advice of Crown officials, invested their all in cattle and land in order to provide for the troops, now withdrawn, the result of which has been ruin to farmers.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) There is no official record of any advice given by Crown officials in the sense indicated in the hon. Member's Question; therefore, while sympathising with the difficulties in which the farmers find themselves, His Majesty's Government have not felt able to deal with their case differently from that of other members of the community.

  St. Helena Magistrate's Salary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. J. Homagee, I. S. O., magistrate in St. Helena, has been reduced in salary by £30 after having completed forty years' service, and was entitled to a pension on his previous salary; whether, in view of the fact that this official remaining on active service is a saving of £400, he can say why his salary has been reduced: and if he will take action to have it restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Mr. Homagee's salary was reduced at the beginning of this year, together with others, under a necessary scheme of retrenchment. Until the finances of St. Helena show a marked improvement it will be impossible to restore his and other salaries to their former figures, but Mr. Homagee has been promised that when the time comes for his retirement, his pension will be calculated on his previous and not on his present emoluments.

  Legal Appeals in St. Helena.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in the event of the Governor of St. Helena acting illegally, the person or persons injured have no opportunity of obtaining an appeal unless able to deposit a large sum of money, before such appeal will be allowed; and whether, in view of this fact, he will consider the advisability of reducing the amount of deposit in order

  1141
  that the poorer classes may have the protection of the higher court.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The fee to he paid on petition from this Supreme Court of St. Helena to the Privy Council is £5, which cannot be considered prohibitive in the case of persons able to afford the other expenses of such an appeal. The Supreme Court is empowered to require security to be given for costs, etc., before an appeal is allowed, and the Secretary of State does not think it would be wise to dispense with this.

  Employees' Insurance in British Central Africa.
  MR. REES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that British insurance companies decline to insure employees engaged in this country for service in British Central Africa owing to the uncertainty which exists as to the law which runs in that Protectorate; and whether he can now give the House any information as to whether the Workmen's Compensation Act is in force in the said Protectorate.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) My hon. friend's Question refers to a matter which is still under the consideration of the Department, and I think it will be of advantage if I defer my reply for the present.

  Ross-shire Schools Water Supply.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of public schools on the mainland of Ross-shire to which a water supply is not laid on, and the names of such schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The number of schools in this position is forty-seven, and the names are as follows—
  Easter Ross District.—Ardross, Crocik, Lubcroy, Hill of Fearn, Kilmuir Easter, Newmore, Tullich.
  Black Isle District.— Arpafeelie, Cullicudden, Drumsrnittal, Killen, Newhall, Peddieston, Sore.
  Mid Ross District.—Achduart Achiltibuie, Achnasheen Altandhu, Badralloch, Boath Bordbuie, Ferin-
  1142
  tosh, Islemartin, Kinlochluichart, Mulbuie Scatwell, Strathcannaird, Strathconan, Tanera (Ardindrean).
  Western District.— Arinacrinachd, Cuaig, Dibaig, Inverasdale, Isle Horisdale, Kallakillie, Laide, Mellon Udrigle, Melvaig, Opinin, Pollewe, Sand.
  South Western District.—Ardineaskan, Auchmore, Dornie, Inverinate, Killilan, Shiel.
  It must not be inferred that the authorities concerned acquiesce in the view that it is necessary to have a supply of water "laid on," even if it were possible, to every single school.

  Pauper Lunacy in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the recently issued Report of the Com missioners in Lunacy for Scotland, shows at Chapter XVI. that the local authorities in the Island of Lewis have made representations in regard to the heavy burden imposed upon the rates by pauper lunacy, will he state how he proposes to meet these representations, especially bearing in mind that the proposal to accommodate harmless lunatics in the poorhouses at Stornoway did not commend itself to the chairman and the two medical Commissioners when they visited the poorhouse.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Accommodation of harmless lunatics in the poor-house at Stornoway has not been rejected in principle by the Board of Lunacy. The proposal suggested by the Committee of the Lewis combination would not have provided for a sufficient number of patients to justify the institution of lunatic wards. If the proposal is amended so as to increase the accommodation the matter is still open to consideration.

  Island of Lewis Water Supply.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that no pro vision is made in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill for the supply of water in insanitary districts in the congested area of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, such as the Island of Lewis, and that the local authority have no adequate funds with which to undertake the work, will he state whether he has yet applied to the

  1143
  Treasury for the requisite assistance; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay, especially bearing in mind that nearly every outbreak of fever in the island has been attributed to the defective water supply.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I cannot do more than refer my hon. friend to the reply given to him on the 8th instant.†

  Stornoway Mails.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that during the last ten years letters delivered at Stornoway have increased from 458,328 to 863,824, letters posted from 353,704 to 679,224, parcels delivered from 19,708 to 48,204, parcels posted from 11,180 to 24,128, and seeing that these figures show that the postal work at Stornoway has doubled in the short space of ten years, will he state whether he can now see his way to place a faster and better steamer on the service, especially bearing in mind that in former years this concession has been withheld on the plea that the correspondence, etc., dealt with at Stornoway did not warrant the increased expenditure.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The increase in the Stornoway mails to which the hon. Member refers has been accompanied by a substantial increase in the cost of the postal service in the Stornoway district, but I am looking further into the question.

  Bellaghy Mail Car Service.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the name of the person whose tender has been accepted for the Bellaghy and Castledawson mail-car service; whether it was the lowest tender sent in; and, if not, on what grounds any lower tenders were not accepted.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The tender of Mr. W. B. Kennedy, the previous contractor, has been accepted for the Bellaghy and Castledawson mail-car service. This tender was not the lowest, but the difference was so trifling that I considered it inadvisable to make
  † See (4) Debates, clxxvii, 1165
  1144
  any change, as the present contractor had given complete satisfaction.

  Shanghai Mail Service.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Postmaster-General whether letters from Shanghai to this country, or vice versa, are ever sent via the Trans-Siberian Railway; if so, what is the time occupied upon the journey as compared with the time taken by other routes; and what is the cost of conveyance per pound of mail matter as compared with other routes.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Letters are sent from the British Postal Agency at Shanghai to this country, and vice versa, by the Trans-Siberian Railway when marked by the senders for trans mission by that route. The approximate time of transit from London to Shanghai by the different routes available for the conveyance of mails is as follows—

  Via Siberia

  20 days.

  Via Vancouver

  27 or 28 days according to the season.

  Via Suez

  30–35 days.

  Via the United-States of America.

  42–45 days.

  States of America.

  The cost per pound of the conveyance of letters sent from this country to Shanghai via Siberia is estimated at 6s. 8d. For letters sent via Suez by French Packet the cost is estimated at 4s. 3d., and in the case of German Packets at 4s. 10d. per pound. I am not in a position to give similar information in regard to letters sent via Vancouver or by British. Packet via Suez, as both the Packet Companies concerned receive a round subsidy covering the whole of the services performed by them.

  Post Office Contracts and the Wage Clause.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether firms that pay from 1s. to 7s. per week less than the standard rate of wage to their employees are invited to tender for work in connection with his Department; whether the tenders of such firms are accepted, providing they agree to pay the standard rate to the workmen directly employed on such contracts; and whether firms

  1145
  that conduct their business on these lines are complying with the fair wages clause inserted in Government contracts.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The fair wages clause relates expressly to work performed under the contract, and to that alone, and does not enable me to control the wages paid by a contractor for other work. At the same time, if it came to my knowledge that a firm was habitually paying low wages in connection with its private work compared with the rate which it was paying under Post Office contract, I should take that fact into consideration when assigning further contracts.

  Post Office Telegraph Messengers.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether instructions have been given to local postmasters to canvass civilians for the employment of telegraph messengers of the age of six teen; and whether, instead of discharging these boys to swell the ranks of the un employed, he will retain till the age of eighteen those willing to serve in the Regular Army, and will guarantee them employment in the Post Office after they have completed their services with the colours and been discharged with a good character.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have recently initiated measures for organising and extending the efforts frequently made by local postmasters to obtain good employment for telegraph messengers for whom there are no permanent outlets in the Post Office; and I am happy to say with much success. I do not think that ex-telegraph messengers of good character swell the ranks of the unemployed. The boys are. no doubt, well aware of the arrangement under which soldiers, discharged with good character, have for many years past been given a proportion of postmen's places.

  Telegram Word Counting.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the new system of counting multiple address and multiple page telegrams results in a financial loss to sub-post masters; and whether he intends taking
  1146
  steps to compensate them for this reduction of income.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The new system— of counting, taken as a whole— will not result in a financial loss to sub-postmasters as a class, on the whole it will tend to increase their emoluments. In a few individual cases the new system might bear hardly, and I am in communication with the Treasury with the view of obviating any hardship in these few cases.

  Glycerinated Calf Lymph.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that during the last financial year the Board paid to a con tractor a sum of £860 17s. 6d. in respect of hire of 505 calves, used for the production of glycerinated calf lymph, will he state for what period these calves were on an average kept at the national vaccine establishment; and will he explain why, in the Estimates for the current year, a sum of £1,350 is set down for the supply of calves and a further sum of £740 for the keep of calves, whilst there is no indication of money being paid for the hire or use of calves for the production of glycerinated calf lymph.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The sum of £1,350 represents the estimated amount for the hire of calves for the production of glycerinated calf lymph, and the sum of £740 the estimated cost of their keep whilst at the national vaccine establishment. They have usually remained there about a fortnight. I will consider whether any alteration should be made in the form of the Estimate relating to this matter.

  Colwyn Bay Water Supply.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, seeing that the Colwyn Bay Council now realise that the water supply is insufficient, will he ascertain whether any steps are being taken to augment the supply, especially in view of the increased demand for water during the holiday season.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The district is supplied with water by the Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water

  1147
  Supply Board. The district council, who are one of the constituent authorities of the Joint Board, have for some time been pressing them to lay an additional main from the intake in Lake Cowlyd, so as to supply more water into the constituent districts, and about a week ago the Joint Board resolved to seek powers next session to take more water from the lake.

  Workhouse Chaplains.
  MR. MONTGOMERY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that to some workhouses boards of guardians have appointed paid Anglican chaplains, to others paid Nonconformist chaplains, and to others unpaid Nonconformist chaplains; and whether workhouse chaplains must be paid, and from what denominations paid or, if allowed, unpaid chaplains must be selected.
  (Answered by Mr. John Bums.) A person holding the office of chaplain to a workhouse must be a clergyman of the Church of England, and he usually receives a salary, but in some instances this is not the case. It is also competent for the guardians, if the circumstances render it expedient, to appoint and pay a religious instructor of any denomination for the purpose of giving religious assistance and instruction to the inmates. No inmate, however, can be required to attend any service which may be celebrated in a mode contrary to his religious principles.

  Ardglass Harbour, County Down.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Vice- President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been called to the repeated complaints that the Churn Rock in Ardglass Harbour, county Down, has caused numerous boat wrecks and loss of life, and that it is an obstruction to navigation, fatal to the development of the harbour, and detrimental to the fishing industry; and whether, having regard to the small cost at which the rock could be removed, steps to that end will be taken without further delay.
  (Answered' by Mr. T. W. Russell) No application has been made to the
  1148
  Department on the subject of the removal of the Churn Rock, which is in Ardglass Harbour. The matter was considered by the Piers and Harbours Commissioners in the year 1884. These Commissioners did not feel justified in allocating to the improvement of this royal harbour any portion of the sea fisheries funds provided by 26 and 27 Vict., c. 26. The interference with the herring fishing from Ardglass is not such as would induce the Department to expend their funds, which are limited in amount, in removing the Churn Rock. It has been estimated that the removal of the rock in question would cost about £2,000.

  The Official Debates.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the evidence given before the Parliamentary Debates Select Committee will be printed and circulated among Members; whether the Government have decided what action they intend to take in regard to the Report of that Committee; and whether it is the intention of the Government to make new arrangements as to the reporting staff before the end of the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The matter is receiving very careful consideration, but I am not able to make any statement at present.

  Ordnance Survey.
  MR. POWER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the position of the civil servants on the Ordnance Survey in 1892 stated, on page 10 of their Report, that there was no apparent necessity for making this Paper a confidential circular, will the President of the Board reconsider his decision, and, if he cannot grant a copy of the regulations as a whole, will he give particulars of the rates of pay governing these civil servants, so that they may know the conditions of their service, and in that respect be placed on a similar footing to the civil servants in other public departments.

  1149
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My noble friend has looked into this question again, but he does not see his way to alter his decision in the matter.

  Weights and Measures Act Administration.
  DR. HAZEL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to say when the general regulations for the guidance of local authorities in the administration of the Weights and Measures Acts will be issued, and whether, if he is unable to name the exact date of their issue, he can give an assurance that the regulations will be laid before Parliament, in accordance with Section 5, Subsection 3, of the Weights and Measures Act, 1904, before the end of the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have every hope that these regulations will be laid before Parliament before the end of the session.

  Liverpool Customs Warehouses.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases the officers who were recently sent from London to examine the stock in the Liverpool warehouses were instructed to pay a second visit to the same premises; how many casks wore examined; how many showed ordinary losses, how many special losses, and how many chargeable losses on each occasion; and how many of the chargeable losses found by the visiting officers were paid by the firm in question and how many have been remitted.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) In only one instance was a second visit paid to any Liverpool bonded warehouse by the officers recently detailed in the ordinary course for examination of stock. The object of such an examination is for revenue purposes only, and it is not in the public interest to divulge the information thus obtained. It may, however, be stated that the Board of Customs are satisfied with the integrity of the stock and that no irregularity had taken place in the warehouse in question.

  Joint Stock Banks.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the
  1150
  Exchequer if he will state the amount of credit balance and the amount on deposit in the joint stock banks for the last financial year in Great Britain, and in Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary, and Sweden; and will he state the amounts on deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks for the above countries, where figures are available, for the last financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have no official statistics as to the amount of deposits in joint stock banks either in this country or abroad. As regards savings banks in the United Kingdom, on the 31st December, 1906 (the close of the Post Office Savings Bank year) the amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks was £155,966.446; and on 20th November, 1906 (the close of the Trustee Savings Bank year), the amount due to depositors in the Trustee Savings Banks was £53.009.299. I have not the information which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's Question relative to foreign savings banks in a complete manner; but I would refer him to pages 170 to 205 of the Board of Trade Blue Book, British and Foreign Trade and Industry [Cd. 2337], where the subject is very fully treated.

  Probate Fees.
  SIR EDWIN CORNWALL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the existing order as to probate fees, is over thirty years old, and that, while ad valorem court fees are chargeable, under it (in respect of personal estate), no such fees are levied on real estate comprised in a probate of letters of administration; if he will take steps to provide for the issue of a new order by which ad valorem court fees may be levied rateably on both real and personal estate; and if he will have such new order framed in. such a way that the ad valorem court fees may increase; instead of decrease proportionately with the value of the real and personal estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am aware that the existing table of fees is more than thirty years old, but it Was

  1151
  reaffirmed by the Supreme Court Fees Order of 1884. Under the Act 38 and 39 Vict., c. 77, s. 26, the fees are fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the advice and consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court, or any three of them, and with the concurrence of the Treasury. It there-fore does not rest with the Treasury to take the initiative in proposing any alteration, but, as at present advised, I see no sufficient reason for proposing an increase in the total amount of the fees.

  Land Commission Clerkships.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as the line of demarcation between second and third-class clerkships in the Land Commission has been removed, and as the nominal promotion from third class does not confer any extra benefits or privileges on clerks so promoted, whether he can state what is gained by preserving the distinction in name between the two classes; and whether, seeing that these classes are amalgamated, both will be described as second-class clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The manner in which the line of demarcation between second and third-class clerks has been modified in the interests of the latter class is fully stated in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question on 1st May last.†The Land Commission do not consider it desirable to adopt the suggestion contained in the latter part of the present Question.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there are third-class clerks in the Land Commission at present in receipt of a larger salary than the initial salary of a second-class clerk in that office, while rising to the same maximum salary by the same annual increment, and that owing to the slow rate of promotion in this Department no third-class clerk can hope to be promoted before he has reached by annual increment a salary, at least, as large as the initial salary of a second-class clerk, whether he can state the
  † See(4) Debates, clxxiii, 851–2
  1152
  advantages, if any, gained by promotion from a third-class to a second-class clerkship in that office.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There are a few third-class clerks in the offices of the Land Commission who receive special allowances for acting as private secretaries to the Commissioners, or for other special duty, and whose total remuneration is, therefore, in some instances higher than the initial salaries of second-class clerks. Otherwise the statement in the first part of the Question is misleading as to the relative positions as regards salary and increment which are occupied by third and second-class clerks. The suggestion that no third-class clerk can hope to be promoted before he has reached by annual increment a salary at least as large as the initial salary of a second-class clerk is based on an incorrect assumption as to the facts.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why Messrs. Jenkins, Monsell, and Eckersley have been promoted to their respective new positions in the Local Government Board over officials having longer services and possessing equal merit; and who is responsible for those appointments.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Mr. Monsell's promotion took place six years ago. Messrs. Jenkins and Eckersley have recently been promoted in their own Department, but not over officials of longer service possessing equal qualifications for the posts. The promotions were made by the permanent head of the Local Government Board in accordance with the Treasury regulations.

  Irish Mineral Rights.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of estates purchased under the Land Act of 1903, the mineral rights are vested in the Land Commission; whether the Land Commission have power to deal with the mineral rights; and whether he proposes to arrange that a geological survey of Ireland should be made with a view that the county councils may take

  1153
  advantage of and utilise any discoveries of mineral wealth within their districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In reply to the first part of the Question I would refer to Sections 13 and 99 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. A Bill for the purpose of enabling the Land Commission to dispose of mineral rights vested in them has been introduced by the Government, and is at present before Parliament. The Government do not propose to under take any geological survey of Ireland other than that which is at present being carried out under the Department of Agriculture.

  Irish Local Government Clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of first-class clerks, higher-grade clerks, abstractors, and other clerks employed in the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, the Board of Works, the Local Government Board, Valuation Office, and Registry of Deeds, respectively, and the proportion of higher appointments and staff officerships in each of these Departments as compared with the whole clerical staff employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Estimates for the current year, which give the particulars asked for.

  Land Commission Clerical Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the proportion of higher appointments and staff officer-ships in. the Land Commission as com pared with the whole clerical staff employed in these offices; whether he can state the character of the distribution of higher appointments and staff officerships in this Department, bearing in mind these averages and the technical and legal nature of the duties assigned to the clerks employed in the Land Commission offices.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my Answers to his Questions on this subject on 19th
  1154
  March and 1st May last, to which I have nothing to add.†

  Irish School Buildings—Teachers' Rooms.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he recognises that a teachers' retiring room is a necessary adjunct to a good school building; and will he instruct the Board of Works in future to permit the cost of the inclusion of such rooms in the estimates on which the State grant is based.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The new plans for schoolhouses do not provide for private rooms for the teachers. The provision of such rooms would greatly increase the cost.

  Pollock Estate, County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what progress has been made in connection with the purchase of the Pollock estate, near Creggs, county Galway, and what amount of land there will be available for distribution in the event of the purchase being completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered their inspectors' report on this estate, but will not be in a position to make a formal offer for purchase until the vendor's title is clear. Further inquiries in the matter are being made. It is anticipated that, if the purchase should be effected, over 2,000 acres of untenanted land will be available for distribution.

  Mallaranny Railway.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to state the result of the interview between the engineer to the Irish Board of Works and the engineer to the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland, as to the cost of construction of the proposed railway from Mallaranny, county Mayo, to Belmullet.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The negotiations in this matter have not yet terminated. The Government are using
  † See(4) Debates, clxxi, 639: clxxiii, 851–2

  1155
  all possible efforts to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and in the meantime it would not be desirable to state the progress of the negotiations piecemeal.

  Synan Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what progress has been made by the Estates Commissioners with regard to the purchase of the untenanted land on the Synan estate, situate at Carnane, near Fedamore, in the county of Limerick; whether the purchase price has been agreed on; and, if so, will the lands be soon divided.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners made a provisional offer last month for the purchase of the untenanted land on the Carnane portion of this estate, but the owner has postponed his decision upon the offer until the Commissioners shall have inspected the remainder of the estate in other parts of the county, and have made a proposal for the purchase of the entire estate.

  All-red Mail Route.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Prime Minister whether any conclusion has been arrived at with respect to the proposed all-red route for mail communication, travel, and transportation, which was declared by unanimous re solution of the Imperial Conference to be demanded in the interests of the Empire; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend Parliament to accord financial support to this scheme.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The matter is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any announcement.

  Higher Division Clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a statement showing the present age, length of service, and annual emoluments of each officer in the Departments under his control who, during the past ten years, entered by the Higher Division
  1156
  Class I., examination; the number of abstractors (assistant clerks), with from one to ten years' service, who are in receipt of less than £100 per annum; and the number of men who have entered by nomination during each of the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The hon. Member has put down Questions of a similar character respecting a number of other public Departments. My right hon. friends concerned and myself are agreed that we should not be justified in authorising the collection of these statistics, which in our opinion would involve an expenditure of time and labour out of all proportion to any result obtainable.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  H.M.S. "King Edward VII."—The Defective Rudder.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the names of the persons who were responsible in the Ayrshire Foundry Company for fraudulently supplying a defective rudder to H.M.S. "King Edward VII."
  *The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert, Devon shire, South Molton): I am informed that the Memorial submitted to the Scottish Law Officers in 1904 contained no imputation whatever against any director of this company except Mr. Marshall, the managing director, and that in his case the accusation was made by one person and denied by three. No criminal prosecution appears to have been considered expedient in 1904, and in the opinion of the Lord Advocate it would be out of the question now.
  MR. LEA: Then is nobody to be punished in this matter?
  *MR. LAMBERT: I have said no criminal prosecution appears to have been considered expedient.

  H.M.S. "Blake" and H. M. S. "Blenheim"
  *Captain FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state

  1157
  what is the present armament of H. M. S. "Blake" and H.M.S. "Blenheim," which are to be converted into mother ships for destroyers.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what are the modifications to be made in the armaments of the cruisers H.M.S. "Blake" and H.M.S "Blenheim."
  *MR. LAMBERT: The original armament of the "Blake" and "Blenheim" was two 9·2·inches, ten 6-inches, and sixteen 3-pounders. The modified armament as mother ships for destroyers will be four 6-inches, four 12-pounders, six 6-pounders. The conversion is now in progress.

  Destroyers at Malta.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when it. is proposed to replace the two destroyers belonging to the flotilla at Malta which have been lost recently.
  *MR. LAMBERT: Only one destroyer has been lost and this will not be replaced.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why is not the lost one to be replaced?
  *MR. LAMBERT: Because in the opinion of the Admiralty it is not considered necessary.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was it the intention of the Admiralty to bring it home from the Mediterranean before it was lost?
  *MR. LAMBERT: I cannot say.

  The Home Fleet.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Home Fleet, in addition to taking part in the review in August, will execute any evolutions under steam as a fighting Fleet this summer.
  *MR. LAMBERT: The reply is in the affirmative.
  MR. BELLAIRSasked whether the Home Fleet was to be exercised at night.
  *MR. LAMBERTsaid the Home Fleet would be exercised at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid that was not his point. The important part of his Question was whether the Fleet would be exercised at night.
  *MR. LAMBERT: I am not competent to state what will be considered necessary. It is within the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief. He will do what ever is necessary for the efficiency of the Fleet, I am sure.

  Safety of the Fleet.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, in a time of profound peace, when our battleships and cruisers are anchored in the waters near Portsmouth and elsewhere, any precautions are taken which would make it impossible for a treacherous foe to surprise our vessels and destroy them with torpedoes; and, if not, will he consider what means should be taken to provide against such a contingency?
  MR. LAMBERT: I think my hon. friend's Question can hardly be intended seriously, but I may say by way of reply, that an attack on the Fleet by a friendly nation at a period of profound peace, without any warning, is not, in the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, a possible contingency.
  MR. LUPTON: I will raise this Question at the proper time.

  Naval White Paper.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the White Paper on the Naval Strength of the Powers was published in the Press on 18th July, while it had not then been received at the Vote Office?
  MR. LAMBERT: This Return was ordered to be printed by the House of Lords, and the subsequent arrangements were undertaken by its officers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not the habit to supply Lords' Papers to Members of this House, and is it not the fact that though this Paper was issued on Thursday morning it was not in the Vote Office of

  1159
  the House of Commons till Friday afternoon?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Wales and Army Contracts
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the contracts connected with the clothing of the Regular Army and the Militia have in the last year been placed in Wales; and, if so, where, and to what extent?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane): During the financial year ended 31st March, 1907, no contracts for clothing and clothing materials were placed in Wales.
  *MR. REES: Will Wales get some of the contracts in future?
  MR. HALDANE: We are always glad to give them to Wales if we can.

  Irvine Moor Manœuvres.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give the age of the two privates, Doyle and Sproute, of the 4th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who are stated to have died from the heat on the 16th instant after the sham fight at Irvine Moor, and the average age of the other thirty-five men who had to go to the hospital on the same occasion.
  MR. HALDANE: Private Doyle was forty-seven years of age and Private Sproute forty-four. Only eleven other cases due to heat were treated and all had returned to duty by the 18th; the average age of these men was twenty-three years.

  Volunteers and the Territorial Army.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state which are the Volunteer units which will be destroyed in order to give effect to the reduction of the force from 219 battalions, as at present, to the 168 battalions of the Territorial Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The reply is in the negative. Until the Associations are formed it would be quite impracticable to
  1160
  attempt to devise in detail any such re construction of the existing Volunteer battalions. The reductions in point of units will probably not be as great as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine.

  Territorial Army—Strength for Active Service.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an Estimate of the total numbers of the Territorial Army likely to be actually available for active service in the field was made before the Bill proposing to establish the force was submitted to Parliament; and, if so, what was the number of men then estimated as likely to be available; and has the Estimate been varied by the withdrawal of the Militia from the Territorial Army.
  MR. HALDANE: The Answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative. The mobile troops, as apart from purely coast defence troops, according to the estimate presented to Parliament [Cd. 3296] will consist of fourteen mounted brigades, fourteen divisions with certain Army troops and line of communication troops, or about 291,000 officers and men in all. The numbers required for the Special Contingent were not included in this Estimate, and the fact that the Militia is now to form part of the Special Contingent does not in any way affect the numbers of the Territorial Army.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Are the figures given in the Return actual or merely nominal figures? Do they take into account the necessary withdrawals from the field force?
  MR. HALDANE: What withdrawals?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Men ill, or men who for other reasons are unable to respond when called out.
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman asked for an estimate, and I have given one.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I want to know what will be the available field force in time of war for the Territorial Field Army.
  MR. HALDANE: That is not the Question on the Paper. I have given him the estimate asked for in the Question.

  The Artillery.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in spite of the definite and categorical pledge given on behalf of the Army Council by the Under-Secretary of State that there would be no reduction in the artillery till trained Militiamen, liable to serve abroad, can take their place, the establishment and the strength of both the Royal Garrison Artillery and of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery have already been reduced; whether, in view of the great importance of maintaining an adequate trained artillery force, he can now give an assurance that he does not propose to adhere to his announced intention of reducing the Regular Horse and Field Artillery by sixty-seven officers and 3,700 other ranks; and whether, if he is unable to give this information, he will state on what grounds of public policy he considers it necessary to refuse it to the House of Commons.
  MR. HALDANE: In the various replies I have given to the right hon. Gentleman I have made it perfectly clear that the pledge with regard to Horse and Field Artillery to which he refers, and which was concerned with the general scheme of reorganisation, has been strictly adhered to. Not a single field battery has been done away with by me. The last reduction of the sort was made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, in 1905, brought home a field battery from Egypt and abolished it. The only diminution in Horse and Field Artillery which has taken place in my time is the consolidation for administrative reasons of certain artillery depots, and the placing on the lower establishment of six batteries which came home from South Africa last year. I have not in any way broken my pledge, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, nor have I failed to give the House the fullest information available. May I, in view of what I have now said many times over, express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stepney, who was associated with him in the discharge of his duties as my pre-
  1162
  decessor in office, will now rest content. For I have nothing to add to the in formation given in this Answer and in my Answer to the similar Question put to me on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman on the 1st inst.†—nor do I propose to give to him any further undertaking of any sort or kind.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked the right, hon. Gentleman to answer the first Question, whether it was a fact that, in spite of a pledge given, the Royal Horse and Field Artillery and the Royal Garrison Artillery had been reduced by nearly 5,000 men. The second Question he had asked several times. Did the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the announcement made in the House that the Horse and Field Artillery were to be reduced by 3,700 men and sixty-seven officers; did the right hon. Gentleman still propose that?
  MR. HALDANE: The Answer to the first Question is, No. As to the second Question, I do not propose to add a single word to the Answer I have given.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER appealing to the Speaker, said: I am putting a perfectly reasonable Question on a matter of public policy upon which I submit I might expect; an Answer; I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement made in the House last year to the effect that he proposed to reduce the Horse and Field Artillery by 3,700 men and 67 officers still forms part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. The Answer to that Question has not been given before, and has not been given to-day.
  MR. HALDANE: An Answer to that appears on the Estimates. I have given the Answer over and over again, and decline to give it again.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am in the recollection of the House, and I submit that no Answer has ever been given.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is in the nature of a debate.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the strength of the Garrison
  † See(4) Debates, clxxvii, 346

  1163
  Artillery has been reduced since he took office?
  MR. HALDANE: The Question refers to Horse and Field Artillery, not Garrison Artillery. ["Yes."] Will the hon. Gentleman point out where Garrison Artillery is mentioned? ["Line 5."]
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Question was "whether the establishment and strength of both the Royal Garrison Artillery and the Royal Horse and Field Artillery have already been reduced."
  MR. HALDANE: That appears on the Estimates; of course they have been reduced in pursuance of the policy recommended by the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, which I have carried out.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERagain asked was it a fact or not that, in spite of the pledge given, the Garrison, Horse and Field Artillery had been greatly reduced since the right hon. Gentleman had been in office.
  MR. HALDANE: This has nothing to do with the Garrison Artillery, as the right hon. Gentleman must know; as to the other Question, I have already answered.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRISasked whether the right hon. Gentleman did not in July last make the statement that the Horse and Field Artillery would be reduced by 3,700 men and sixty-seven officers.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member can inform himself upon that point.

  The Primrose League and Army Bands.
  MR. BRANCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is able to give the House any information as to the means by which the services of the band of the Royal Artillery were obtained for a meeting of the Prim rose League at Southgate on the 22nd June.
  MR. HALDANE: The applicant appears on inquiry to have been under the impression that an entertainment to
  1164
  Members of the Primrose League given at his own expense and in his own grounds would not be a political meeting. Moreover, he has informed the Army Council that the statutes of the Primrose League declare that this League is independent of Party politics. The view of the Army Council is that both of these impressions were erroneous, and the applicant has been informed that the statement which he originally made that the meeting for which he asked for the services of the band would not be a political one was in military opinion ill-founded.

  Rabies in Rhodesia.
  MR. RIDSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if a consignment of dog muzzles has been recently ordered by the Rhodesian Administration for the purpose of stamping out rabies among native dogs.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. Churchill,): It appears from the report of the Medical Director for 1906 that rabies, which first appeared in Southern Rhodesia in 1902, became more prevalent and more generally distributed in 1906 than in any previous year. Regulations were accordingly enacted with regard to the muzzling of dogs and other measures calculated to check the disease, and 20,000 muzzles have been ordered for distribution to natives. The Chief Native Commissioner of Matabeleland reports that the Matabele are much alarmed at the spread of the disease, and are killing off their own dogs in large numbers.
  MR. RIDSDALE: Was the consent of the native chiefs obtained before the order was given?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know, but I do not suppose it would be possible to enforce the order without their co operation.

  Cape Colony and Transvaal and Orange River Self-Government.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Legislative Assembly of the Cape Colony has passed a resolution thanking His Majesty's Government for the grant of

  1165
  self-government recently made to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; and, if so, will he say what were the terms of the resolution and by what majority was it passed.
  MR. CHURCHILL: On the 2nd July the Cape House of Assembly unanimously passed the following resolution: "This House records its satisfaction with the policy pursued by His Majesty's Government in granting free Parliamentary institutions to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, and expresses its confidence that the result of that policy will be to assure peace and prosperity, and to promote the ultimate union of His Majesty's dominions in South Africa."

  Unrest in East Africa.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that practically all native risings and unrest have been caused by the apprehension that they will be deprived, one way or another, of their lands, he will make it clear that the native reserves in East Africa are inalienable.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg at the same time to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when creating native reserves in British East Africa, he will consider the possibility of placing them in the hands of trustees with a view to prevent them being alienated at any time.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State concurs fully in the principle that a native reserve, when once established, shall be inalienable except with the consent of the natives themselves, and upon its being proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that alteration is required. When I informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question of the 17th of this month that there was no present intention of rescinding the Kikoyo reservation I did not mean to suggest that there would be any arbitrary or unjust confiscation in the future, but it is possible that, circumstances may arise, such as the increase or decrease of a tribe, the failure of certain staple articles of food within a reserve, a deterioration in its sanitary condition, etc., which would render an alteration of its bound-
  1166
  aries or location both just and desirable. I need scarcely say, however, that any proposed change of this kind would be most closely scrutinised by the Government, which in this matter, as in all others affecting the welfare of the natives, would act as their trustees.
  MR. ASHLEY: My Question was whether the Government would consider the desirability of placing the reserves in the hands of trustees?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have said the Government will act as trustees.
  MR. ASHLEY: I suggested private individuals should act. I have not so much confidence in the Government.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked if the Answer would apply equally to Basutoland?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No doubt it will apply generally.

  Mr. Churchill to visit East Africa.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the rising importance of the East Africa, and Uganda Protectorates and the questions which must continually come before the Colonial Office, he could take an early opportunity of visiting the country and making himself personally acquainted with some of the problems.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Elgin has asked me whether I could arrange to visit the Protectorates in question during the autumn recess, and I am of course very glad to place myself at his disposal.

  Rand Strike.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of. State for the Colonies whether, in view of the demand made upon the services of Imperial troops by the continuance of the strike on the Band, and the danger both of diminishing the white population and reviving racial animosities, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of using their friendly offices with the Transvaal Government for the purpose of bringing about a termination of the strike by arbitration, or such other

  1167
  method as may commend itself to that Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State fully sympathises with the desire of the hon. and learned Member to put an end to this unhappy commercial conflict, with its grave and destructive influences. But all the information at our disposal goes to show that the Government of the Transvaal is quite alive to the difficulties of the situation, and is in close touch with both sides in the dispute.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked as to the position of the strike now?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The information we have received from South Africa is very full, but it does not reach us, now that responsible Government is established, until it is settled in the form of minutes or despatches from the Lieutenant-Governor. We have not had any later telegraphic communication.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked how long it was intended the troops should remain there doing police duty.
  MR. CHURCHILL: That raises a considerable matter of policy which I cannot answer.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Have the Imperial Government named any date beyond which the Imperial troops will not be required.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Not at present.

  Zomba Garrison.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether the armed forces at Zomba are being reduced.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There has been some reduction in the number of troops at Zomba since March last, as the force of King's African Rifles in the British Central Africa Protectorate generally has been reduced by two companies.
  MR. REES: Are further reductions contemplated?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know.

  St. Helena Natives and the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and, if so, what, statutory conditions governing the importation of labour into the Transvaal prevent British subjects from St. Helena from working in the Transvaal mines.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am advised that natives of St. Helena could not be introduced into the Transvaal at the present time except in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Importation Ordinance, 1904.

  British Interests in Asia Minor.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will see that British interests in Asia Minor are safe guarded with special reference to the avoidance of any monopoly in railway construction, with exclusive advantage to any single Power.
  MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir Edward Grey): My right hon. friend is not aware that any railways have been constructed with exclusive advantage to any single Power. The last concession for railway construction in Asia Minor was granted to a British company. My right hon. friend is fully alive to the importance of safe guarding British interests in Asiatic Turkey; but he is not aware that any concessions for railways likely to prove detrimental to those interests have been granted recently.

  Kaid Sir Harry Maclean.
  MR. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Kaid Sir Harry Maclean is still a prisoner in Morocco; and if there is any news as to his safety and well-being.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: According to the latest reports received from His Majesty's Minister at Tangier, Sir Harry Mac lean is still in the hands of Raisuli, but His Majesty's Government have no reason to fear for his personal safety and well-being.

  Khedivial Law School— Case of M. Lambert.
  Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of France have made any representations to His Majesty's Government on the Lambert affair; whether the Government of France consider Mr. Dunlop's action as contrary to the spirit of the Treaty of 1904; and whether, in the interests of the entente cordiale, His Majesty's Government will recommend the Government of Egypt to reappoint M. Lambert as principal of the Khedivial Law School, or, failing him, to consult the wishes of the French Government.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: No representations have been made by the French Government, and my right hon. friend has nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on the 16th instant,†

  Horse-taximeter Cabs.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many horse-taximeter cabs are now awaiting registration, and for what reason registration up to now has been refused; and on what grounds objection is taken to horse-taximeter cabs plying for a lesser fare than that fixed by statute.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone,): I cannot say how many owners of horse-cabs wish to fit them with taximeters. As I have already explained, my intention is to enable every cab to use a taximeter. The law officers, however, advise me that the taximeters which have up to now been submitted for use with horse-cabs do not comply with the existing statutory requirements; so that the only means of effecting my purpose is by legislation, which I hope to introduce in the course of a few days.

  London Police and the Yiddish Language.
  MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Metropolitan Police Force are now proficient in Yiddish; and
  † See(4) Debates, clxxviii,535
  1170
  how many of them are now studying that language.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Fifteen men are reported to be tolerably proficient, and twenty-five others to be studying.

  Convict Richard Coles.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the friends of Richard Coles, who was found insane at the last Winchester assizes and is at present confined at Broadmoor, have petitioned him to confine Coles in the Hampshire County Asylum, as they are too poor to visit him at that distance from Hampshire; and whether, in view of the fact that the prisoner is perfectly quiet and suffers from depression, he will cause him to be transferred to the county asylum.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, I have received an application to that effect and have given it very careful consideration. I regret, however, that in view of all the circumstances of the case I do not feel justified in authorising the patient's removal from Broadmoor. The patient tried to murder his wife, and the case is more suitable for Broadmoor than for a county asylum.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the relations of this man are extremely poor?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, I have taken all the circumstances into consideration.

  Weak-minded Prisoners.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any statistics to show the number of prisoners placed under observation because of their mental condition; what is the policy of the Department towards the number who may be classified as irresponsibles; and whether he would be willing to grant a Return of such prisoners in all our chief prisons.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Both in local and in convict prisons those prisoners who are not certifiably insane but are

  1171
  unfit through mental deficiency for the ordinary penal discipline form a separate class and are specially treated. In the year 1906–7 the numbers were, in local prisons 355, in convict prisons 107. The policy of the Prison Commissioners is to place these prisoners under the special charge of the medical officers of the prisons and to keep them continuously under the personal care of selected warders. The medical officers regulate their discipline and diet, and allow them such employment as is suited to the condition of each individual. In addition to those so classified there are other prisoners, the number of whom I cannot give, who are temporarily under observation to ascertain their mental state, particularly prisoners who have been remanded by the magistrates in order to obtain reports from the medical officers on their mental condition before dealing with them.

  British Colonial Consuls.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his decision to appoint consuls to act in British Colonies was in any way due to requests made or advice tendered by the Colonial Premiers or other Colonial authorities; whether the gentlemen who have been, or are about to be, appointed to these appointments were selected in consultation with Colonial authorities; whether it is anticipated that the services of these gentlemen will be of value to the Colonies; and, if so, whether the Colonies have offered to pay the whole or any part of the salaries of the gentle- men so selected.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon): The proceedings at the recent Imperial Conference had no doubt a great deal to do with the decision to extend the present system of commercial agents in the Colonies. Care will naturally be taken to see that any persons appointed to these posts are acceptable to the Colonies in which they will reside. As the commercial agents will be appointed primarily in the interests of traders of the United Kingdom, it is not in contemplation to suggest that any portion of their salaries should be met by the Colonial Governments.
  In reply to a supplementary Question,
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas under stood to say that he thought the Prime Minister of New Zealand pressed the suggestion.

  Life Insurance.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that with some industrial insurance companies in London the practice has grown up of issuing policies on lives other than those of the proposers or payers of the premiums; whether his attention has been called to the fact that these companies are issuing such policies both in England and Ireland; and whether, as the absence of assurable interest generally renders the policies illegal and the amount insured irrecoverable unless as an act of grace, he will cause a warning to be issued to the companies and to the public.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that industrial insurance companies issue policies on lives other than those of the proposers and payers of the premiums, but I am not aware that the practice prevails of their issuing such policies where the insurer has no insurable interest in the life insured. I have no doubt that the companies are aware of the provisions of the law on the subject, and I doubt if it is necessary to issue a warning such as that suggested by the hon. Member. If, however, he has any definite information that he can furnish as to the issue of these illegal policies I shall be glad to consider it.

  Scottish Emigration.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the number of emigrants sailing from Scottish ports during the first six months of the present year, distinguishing, as far as possible, emigrants of Scottish nationality from emigrants of other nationalities passing through Scotland.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am causing the particulars asked for by my hon. friend to be printed with the Votes.
  [The following was the statement printed with the Votes]:

  Statement showing the passenger movement between Scottish ports and non-European countries during the six months January to June, 1907, distinguishing passengers of Scottish nationality.

  Scottish.

  Other.

  Total.

  Number of passengers outward

  29,301

  11,754

  41,055

  Number of passengers inward

  2,784

  4,062

  6,846

  Balance outward

  26,517

  7,692

  34,209

  Netherfield Railway Crossing Fatality.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a railway crossing accident which happened at Saville's Crossing, Nether-field, Nottingham, on Tuesday morning, the 16th inst., when a school girl, aged ten, was killed; if he is aware that the Great Northern and Midland Railways run side by side at the said crossing, and that twelve other fatal accidents have happened at this crossing; and if he intends to take any action in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This sad accident was reported to the Board of Trade by the Great Northern Railway Company. I am in communication with the company on the subject, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  All British Mail Route to Australia.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the negotiation for the establishment of a fast all-British mail service to Australia and New Zealand.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE.: The matter is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any announcement at present.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the result will be made known.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot say at present.

  Gas Light and Coke Company.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Public Control Committee of the London County Council have given permission to the Gas Light and Coke Company to reimpose meter rents at a cost to the consumers of London of about £60,000 per annum; and whether, in view of the pledge given by the Gas Light and Coke Company that meter rents, which had been abolished in 1905, should not be re-imposed, he intends taking any action in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand that the London County Council have acquiesced in the proposal of the Gas Light and Coke Company to modify the understanding made with the Council in 1903 so as to permit them to reimpose meter rents (which were discontinued in 1895) at an estimated cost to consumers of about £60,000 per annum in lieu of raising the price of gas. This has been done subject to the company giving an undertaking that the authorised dividend shall in future be calculated as if the price of their gas were 1d. per 1,000 cubic feet higher than that actually charged; that the price of gas to the company's ordinary consumers north of the Thames will not be increased beyond the present price of 2s. 11d. per 1,000 cubic feet for a period of one year; and that the annual meter charge for a three-light meter shall not exceed 1s. 8d. per annum. The company appear to be acting within their statutory powers and the Board of Trade do not seem to have any authority to intervene. I understand that the Public Control Committee of the London County

  1175
  Council were influenced in their recommendation by the fact that the poorer class of consumers who use automatic meters will not be affected by the change.

  Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the final or further Report of the Royal Commission on the Treatment and Disposal of Sewage, which was appointed in 1898, is expected to be ready.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John BURNS,): Perhaps I may answer this Question. I understand that the Royal Commission hope to issue a further Report before the end of the year. I also understand that the investigation of the disposal of trade effluents when not mixed with sewage, which will form the subject of the final Report of the Commission, has been commenced.

  The Post Office and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what course he proposes to adopt with regard to compensation to injured postal servants in view of his decision to issue no scheme under the Compensation Act of last year.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): The Post Office servants to whom the Act applies will be dealt with under its terms, and, generally, I may add that where the Post Office sick pay regulations afford more favourable terms these will be continued. The full details have not, however, yet been settled by the Treasury; when they arc they will be published in the Post Office Circular.

  P. & O. Mail Contract.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a new mail contract has been made with the Peninsular and Oriental Company; and, if so, when it is proposed to submit that con tract for the approval of the House.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): The new contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company has not yet been completed,
  1176
  and I cannot at present say when it will be possible to submit the instrument for the approval of the House; but I hope before the end of the present session.
  MR. SMEATON: Is the question of the limit of speed still open to revision?
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked for notice of the Question.

  Westmoreland Telephones.
  MR. STEWART-SMITH: I beg to ask the Post master-General if he is aware that the National Telephone Company, having made agreements with persons in West more land to have a telephone at their private residences (including the right to send messages over trunk lines) for the sum of £5 for twelve months with 300 free calls, and subsequent calls at the rate of 6s. 8d. per 100, are now declining to permit these calls at the rate specified, and are insisting on entirely new agreements being made at the minimum charge of £5 and 300 free calls; and whether he can exercise any control or use any influence in the matter.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON): I have no knowledge of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. The question at issue appears to rest upon the proper interpretation of the agreements between the National Telephone Company and their subscribers, on which I am not in a position to offer an opinion.

  Low Valley School.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether there is a deficiency of school accommodation at present at Low Valley, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; whether any progress has been made in providing new school accommodation; and, if not, why Church and Roman Catholic schools have been recently closed as unnecessary.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna,): I am informed that the local authority hope to have completed the conveyance of the site for a new school in the course of a week or two, and that permanent buildings will be provided

  1177
  with all despatch. I understand that there are sufficient places available in the various schools for the children who re quire them, but I am having Returns pre pared of the attendance up to the end of this month, and in the event of any over crowding upon the recognised accommodation being found to exist I propose to require that a temporary school shall be erected to be ready for occupation after the summer holidays.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Is it not the fact that forty-one girls have been refused ad mission to this school, and that the decision of the managers of the school that it is overcrowded has been over ruled by the local authorities?
  MR. MCKENNA: On the last point I must ask for notice. I believe it is the case that forty-one children have been refused admission to the school.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic elementary school at Low Valley is a modern and well-equipped building, and that the adjacent Council school is a very old and unsatisfactory building; and will he explain why the latter is maintained by the West Riding County Council, while the former is refused maintenance as being unnecessary.
  MR. MCKENNA: I am unable to say whether the Roman Catholic school is a modern building, but when the Board's architect visited it last year it was far from satisfactory for school purposes. The Council school building is admittedly unsuitable, and its use will be discontinued as soon as a new school is provided. The Council school is maintained by the local education authority, because it is recognised as a public elementary school; the Roman Catholic school is not so maintained because recognition as a public elementary school has been refused.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what steps he proposes to take in order that the Low Valley Catholic school may be again placed on the grant list.
  MR. MCKENNA: No new facts have been brought to my notice which require
  1178
  or justify any modification of my previous decision.
  MR. BOLAND: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise this Question on the Motion for adjournment on Friday afternoon.

  The Education Regulations.
  MR. CARLILE: On behalf of the hon. Member for London University, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether schools which were on the grant list for the year 1906–7, but which during the school year 1907–8 failed to fulfil one or more of the conditions set out in the Regulations which would entitle them to receive the increased grants under Articles 39 to 41 of the Regulations, will continue to receive grants as heretofore, not only for the school year 1907–8, as stated in Article 42, but subsequently, provided they satisfy the Regulations in other respects, or whether it is his intention after the year 1908 to strike off such schools from the grant list altogether.
  MR. MCKENNA: The schools referred to will receive, in respect of the school year 1907–8, not the grants "as hereto fore," but the grants specified in Article 42 of the new Regulations, provided that they satisfy the Regulations in all requisite respects. The Answer to the concluding paragraph is in the negative, but I cannot, of course, in any way bind my own action or the action of the Board of Education in future years.
  MR. CARLILE: On behalf of the hon. Member for London University, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state in how many schools which are recognised as secondary schools, and receive grants as such, the Board has permitted, in accordance with Article 8 of the Regulations, no languages other than English to be taught; and whether he can give the names of those schools.
  MR. MCKENNA: Sanction has been given in two cases only. The first is the Central Foundation Girls' School, Stepney, which is attended mainly by girls of foreign origin, for whom instruction in English is more than usually necessary,

  1179
  and who have not the ordinary difficulty in mastering the initial stages of a foreign language. French, however, continues to be taught in this school for a number of hours less than the ordinary minimum required by the Board. The second case is the Duchess of Northumberland's Girls' School, Alnwick, where the curriculum is of a technical charater involving the allocation of a large amount of time to domestic subjects.

  Secondary School Code for Wales.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the Code and Regulations for Secondary Schools in Wales and Monmouthshire will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Welsh Code has already been presented to Parliament and I hope copies will be available in the course of a day or two. The Regulations for Secondary Schools in Wales and Mon mouthshire will, I hope, be presented during this week.

  Education Grant.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if any applications have been received from local education authorities for a share in the grant of £100,000 towards the erection of new schools; and, if so, how many applications have been received, and from what authorities.
  MR. MCKENNA: I have received a considerable number of inquiries as to whether a contribution from this grant will be available, but they are mostly based on a misapprehension as to the scope of the grant and no complete record of such applications has been preserved.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the circular to be issued to local education authorities informing them of the methods by which they should apply for their share of the £100,000 to be voted for new schools.
  MR. MCKENNA: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that each local authority will be entitled
  1180
  to share in this grant. The grant is intended for, and restricted to, special cases where the conditions, which I have already outlined to the House, are satisfied. I am not prepared to say whether a circular will or will not be required, but I have under consideration regulations, compliance with which will be necessary in order to obtain the grant, and these will in due course be laid upon the Table.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will again consider the possibility of making the annual Government grant to local educational authorities payable in instalments, in view of the inconvenience caused to such authorities by the present system.
  MR. MCKENNA: The arrangement which my hon. Friend indicates will, of course, be considered in connection with any scheme for amalgamation and simplifying the existing grants and methods of payment, and I hope I may be in a position next year to initiate considerable advance in that direction. I do not consider it possible, pending the introduction of more extensive changes, to revert to the system of quarterly instalments of annual grant, which was a purely temporary expedient.

  Welsh. Code.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education why the Code recently issued does not apply to Wales and Monmouth shire.
  MR. MCKENNA: It has been found expedient to issue a separate Code for Wales and Monmouthshire.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Why?
  MR. MCKENNA: For the same reason that it was found expedient to establish a separate Welsh Department of the Board.

  The Mall.
  MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when it is expected that the new electric light standards will be erected along the Mall.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. Harcourt,): I regret that I am unable at present to announce any date for the commencement of this work.

  Public Accounts Committee's Report.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Times newspaper of Thursday last, the 18th July, purporting to give an account of certain passages in the Second Report of the Committee; whether he is aware that this Report had not then been presented.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: My attention has been called to this matter. The Report was presented on the 16th and was sent at once to the printers and has not yet been circulated to the House. The House will, I am sure, agree that such premature publication is most objectionable. I can assure my hon. friend that as long as I have the honour to be Chairman of the Committee I shall do my best to prevent it. I think it fair to add that the Committee have always received the most hearty co-operation from the officials connected with the House in preventing any such disclosures in the past, and I am sure we may rely on that co-operation in the future.

  Fishery Protection.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if information was received by H.M.S. "Hebe," lying at Balta Sound, acting for the Scottish Fishery Board, that a trawler was destroying the living of the fishermen towards Northwick, and that the reply was given that the "He be" had not steam up and was consequently useless; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,): H.M.S. "Hebe" has been sent to Balta Sound by the courtesy of the Admiralty mainly to preserve order among the large herring fleet, British and foreign, engaged at that place. To patrol in search of illegal trawling is thus not in her ordinary scope of duty, but in this case her Commander
  1182
  sent an armed boat in pursuit which, however, was not successful in making a capture. I do not think any action on my part is required.
  MR. POWER: The Admiralty have consistently refused to supply a gunboat for the protection of Irish fisheries. How many are supplied to Scotland?
  MR. SINCLAIR: One vessel and one tender, but notice has now been given that that arrangement must terminate.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: When?
  MR. SINCLAIR: That has not been decided.

  Site for Dalmuir School.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the land at Dalmuir acquired recently by the school board of the parish of Old Kilpatrick, in Dumbartonshire, as a site for a new school, what was the area of the land so purchased; when it was purchased; whether it was purchased under compulsory powers; what was the price paid for it; and what was taken as its annual value for rating at the time of the purchase; or, if that land formed part of a larger unit on the valuation roll, what was the area and what was taken as the annual value for rating of that unit at the time of the purchase, and by how much was that annual value reduced in consequence of the exclusion of the purchased portion.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Scottish Education Department have been in communication with the school board of Old Kilpatrick on the subject of the hon. Member's Question and have been sup plied by them with the following information:— The area of ground acquired by the school board is two acres, and was purchased from Mr. William Beardmore, shipbuilder, etc., as at 15th May, 1906, although the transaction was not completed until 22nd May of this year, when the now school was completed and when Mr. Beardmore took possession of the old school ground which he purchased from the board. The ground was not purchased under compulsory powers, although the choice of a site was almost

  1183
  entirely confined to the ground in question. The price paid was £1,200 per acre. The area of the field, including the site of the school, was 5· 778 acres. The gross rental as entered in the valuation roll of the whole field was £11 7s. 6d., and the annual value as defined by the Poor Law Acts for rating purposes was £3 10s. 10d. quoad the tenant and £9 3s. 9d. quoad the owner. The remaining portion of the field does not now appear in the valuation roll as the ground is in the market for building purposes.

  House Letting in Scotland.
  MR. CLELAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the missive system of house-letting in Scotland will be presented.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I hope before the end of the session.

  Irish Dairy Industry.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the Department has any statistics as to the average return of milk from the dairy cows in Ireland; whether the Department is aware that cattle properly bred for milking qualities give from 50 to 100 per cent, more milk than those generally in use; and whether the Department will assist poor small farmers to buy good yearling heifers so as to rear them for milking purposes.
  *THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The Department have no such statistics, nor is it easy to see how they could be obtained, but experts place the yield at about 400 gallons. Apart from the figures, the Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. In regard to the concluding query the Department cannot undertake to purchase yearlings, and to supply them to small farmers.

  Illegal Trawling in Lough Foyle.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland)
  1184
  whether, when the entrance to Lough Foyle was last visited by the fishery steamer, two trawlers were caught inside the legal limit, and have since been convicted and fined; whether he is aware that illegal trawling continues on an extensive scale off the Northern Coast; and whether he can make arrangements for a more frequent and effective patrol than has hitherto been given to this district.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Department's cruiser "Helga" captured a steam trawler fishing within prohibited limits off the mouth of Lough Foyle on 5th June. She had visited the locality several times since, and, on the 23rd of the same month, captured another steam vessel illegally trawling. No reports of illegal trawling have since been received by the Department from the neighbourhood in question. During the month of June the "Helga" patrolled the Northern Coast on nine different days or nights.

  Donegal and Kerry Fishery Harbours.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he has observed the statement made by the Rev. Mr. Green, Inspector of Fisheries (Ireland), before the Committee on the Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill, to the effect that from Killybegs, in county Donegal, to Fenit, in county Kerry, there was no harbour in which fishing boats could land at all states of the tide; and can he say what steps the Department propose taking with a view to the proper development of the fishing industry on the North-West and West Coasts of Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Mr. Green stated before the House of Commons Committee on the Collooney and Bellmulet Railway Bill that there was no harbour between Killybegs, in Donegal, and Fenit in Kerry, at which large fishing boats can, irrespective of tide, deliver their fish direct on to the railway. The Department would be very pleased to see further railway facilities provided.

  Banbridge Petty Sessions
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the number of cases adjudicated upon at the

  1185
  special court of petty sessions held at Banbridge, county Down, on 11th June, before Mr. Howard Ferguson, J. P.; whether the law requires that such cases should be heard and determined by more than one justice of the peace; and whether having regard to the number of deaths recently amongst justices of the peace in that district, it is intended to appoint others forthwith.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. REDMOND): I am informed that the cases referred to in the Question were prosecutions for drunkenness and indecent behaviour in the streets, which, under the Town Improvement Act, one magistrate has power to adjudicate upon. Two magistrates belonging to the Banbridge Petty Sessions district have died within the past three years, and the Lord Chancellor has recently appointed two magistrates for the district, making eleven now qualified for attendance at Banbridge Petty Sessions. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he is making further inquiries as to the necessity for appointing additional magistrates.

  Canada and Irish Exports.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with reference to the Canadian Customs Memorandum, dated 1st May, 1907, he has requested the Dominion Government to give such instructions as may enable the separation to be made of the exports of Irish produce from those of the produce of Great Britain; and, if so, whether a favourable answer has been received.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Canadian Government have been asked whether they can see their way to give the instructions suggested by the hon. Member for South Kerry, but the decision of that Government has not yet been communicated to His Majesty's Government.

  Ballinskelligs Postmastership.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state with reference to the retirement of Mr. Patrick Haren from the position of sub-postmaster at Ballinskelligs, whether he is aware that Mr. Haren offered to comply with the wishes of the Department as regards
  1186
  providing premises, and that he had already built and fitted two post offices at his own expense for which the Department had not allowed him anything; and if he can say why, on the retirement of Mr. Haren, the position was not given to his assistant, who is a near relative, in accordance with the usual custom.
  I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick Haren was dismissed from his position as sub-postmaster of Ballinskelligs, county Kerry, on the alleged ground that he was over the limit of age; that a false and malicious report was made to the postmaster at Killarney by Thomas O'Connor, of Ballinskelligs, against Mr. Haren; that the papers are In the possession of the secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, and that the charge was proved to be false; whether the retirement of Mr. Haren was due to this report and not through age, as he is quite capable of performing his duties; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take so that Mr. Haren may vindicate his good character.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): As I have already informed the hon. Member, Mr. Haren's services as sub-postmaster of Ballinskelligs were not retained because he was over seventy years of age, and he was not considered to be thoroughly efficient. The imputations made against Mr. Haren by Mr. O'Connor were not regarded as proved, and Mr. Haren's retirement was not due to Mr. O'Connor's complaint. As I have already informed the hon. Member by letter, the appointment could not be given to his assistant because she was not twenty-one years of age.

  Rosslare and Fishguard Mail Service.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Post-master-General whether his attention has been called to a resolution adopted by the Mitchelstown Rural District Council protesting against the inefficiency of the delivery of the mails in the town and district since the opening of the Rosslare and Fishguard service; and if he will consider the necessity of establishing a mail-car service between Cahir and Mitchelstown as a means of remedying the grievance complained of.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): I have just received a copy of the resolution referred to, and I have called for a Report on the subject. On its receipt an Answer shall be sent to the hon. Member.

  Emoluments of British Law Officers.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are the average emoluments, both in salaries and fees, attached to the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for England, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General for Ireland, and the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman,): The emoluments of the English law officers are derived from fees commuted or fees paid for law cases undertaken on behalf of the Crown, and both law-officers are debarred from undertaking private practice. The average payment during the past five years amounts in the case of the Attorney-General to £13,700, and of the Solicitor-General to £10,298. The Attorney-General for Ireland receives a salary of £5,000, and the Solicitor-General for Ireland a salary of £2,000. The average of the fees from sources other than Law Charges Vote received during the past five years by the Attorney-General is £150 18s., and by the Solicitor-General £61 6s. The average of fees paid to both law officers under Sub-head E of Vote for Law Charges is £1,077 14s. 5d. But the amounts paid to the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, respectively, cannot be ascertained without further inquiries. The Lord Advocate receives a salary of £5,000, and the Solicitor-General for Scotland a salary of £2,000. No fees are paid in either case.

  Education (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can hold out any definite prospect of further procedure with the Education (Scotland) Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope that further progress may be made with this Bill provided no serious or prolonged opposition is offered to it.

  Pacific Islanders Protection Act.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now say when the Bill to amend the Pacific Islanders Protection Act will be introduced.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:The matter is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any announcement.

  Church of England Worship.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give an assurance that no alteration shall be made in the lawful worship of the Established Church of England either by rubric, rule, or in any other way, as a result of the letters of business granted by the Crown to the Convocations of York and Canter bury unless such alteration is first submitted to Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend will not expect me to travel beyond the responsibility of the Government in this matter. He may rest assured that the Crown will not be advised to make any such alterations as he foreshadows without the approval of Parliament.

  The Official Debates.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what action it is proposed to take in regard to the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates, lately issued; and will the House be afforded an opportunity of discussing the said Report.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Committee's Report is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but I cannot say anything as yet as to what action may be taken in the matter. I am afraid that I cannot provide an opportunity for the discussion of this Report, at any rate, during the present session.

  Home Office Vote.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that on Thursday six hours and a half was devoted to the discussion on the Home

  1189
  Office Vote, that out of this time the Home Secretary and Under-Secretary occupied 113 minutes, and that one Member spoke for fifty-five minutes on the Edalji case, he will, in view of the fact that only three hours and forty-three minutes were available to Members to discuss industrial questions, give another day for the discussion of this Vote?
  *MR. REES: Is it not the case that while the individual Edalji occupied fifty-five minutes, not one minute was Available for discussing the grievances of All the florists of London?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I am not sure whether this is an accurate analysis of the way in which time was occupied by Members, but I may point out that in his opening speech, my right hon. friend the Home Secretary supplied a large quantity of information that would otherwise very naturally have formed a subject of inquiry by hon. Members, and, therefore, the necessity for some speeches, at any rate, was obviated. No more time can be afforded for the Vote.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least a dozen Members desired to take part in the de bate on this Vote in view of the multitude of industrial questions outside the London florists?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry, but I cannot control the disposition of the time set apart for the discussion of Votes.

  Islands of St. Thoméand Principé.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the quantity of cocoa imported into this country from Angola and the Islands of St. Thomé and Principe; and whether, in view of the fact that the said cocoa is produced practically entirely by the slave labour of men, women, and children, and that it has been decided by His Majesty's Government that the mild form of slavery in Zanzibar shall come to an end this year, he will consider the desirability of prohibiting slave-grown produce into this country?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not considered desirable to take any steps in the direction indicated.
  MR. BYLES: Is it not the fact that England in concert with other Powers is bound by the Ashburson Treaty, the Berlin Act of 1882, and the Russian Act of 1890, to suppress every kind of slave trade in the interior of Africa, and why are these solemn undertakings ignored?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked for notice.
  MR. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prison-made goods from other countries compete with goods made in this country?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  THE GOVERNMENT AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to ask whether I shall be in order or whether it will be proper for me to ask a Question relative to the procedure of the House, which has reference partly to the Committee of Supply, partly to the Appropriation Bill, but which, as it has nothing to do with any technical breach of order in Committee of Supply, I did not put to the Chairman of Committees. There is a clause in the Act of 1870 forbidding the use of public money for the building or equipping of elementary schools. Money for this very purpose is proposed to be voted in the Estimates for the current year. It is not proposed to repeal the prohibition contained in the Act of 1870. The inclusion of the Vote for this at present illegal purpose in the schedule of the Appropriation Act is assumed by the Government, I understand, to justify the illegality. But under the principles and practice which regulate our discussions on the Appropriation Bill, it is practically impossible to discuss and divide upon this policy either on the First, Second, or Third Reading of the measure; it is not only practically, but technically impossible to do so on the Committee stage; and there is no Report stage. I wish to ask whether, in these circum stances, the proposal of the Government,

  1191
  if carried through, would not be in effect to initiate the practice of repealing by Resolution legislation which still remains unaltered on the Statute-book; whether such a practice would not have the most far-reaching consequences; and whether it is in accordance with the principles which have hitherto governed the legislation of this House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to inform me privately that he intended to raise this question, and I have given it the best consideration I could. I have come to this conclusion, that assuming all the objections which he has stated to be well founded, yet, notwithstanding that, I do not see that any period is reached at which my jurisdiction could be invoked, or, if invoked, could be properly brought into play. It is not for me to say that the Government are not entitled to put before the House such Estimates as they consider proper. If the Committee passes those Estimates, it is not for me to say that this House shall not agree to the Report of that Vote in Supply; and the Report being agreed to it is not for me to say that it shall not be included in the Appropriation Bill. For these reasons, it seems to me that the Speaker has no authority to intervene, if he had any desire to do so. It is possible that the question may come before the Committee of Public Accounts, if the Comptroller and Auditor-General should eventually call the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts to it; and it is also possible that it might be a matter for the Courts to determine whether the Appropriation Act is sufficient to repeal by implication a section of the Act of 1870, which specifically forbids the appropriation of a certain sum of money to a particular object. In these, two matters the House will see I have no right to intervene. The matter, therefore, seems to be really a constitutional one, and one entirely for the House to decide for itself. Putting the matter as shortly as possible, the two questions would seem to be these: Can the House of Commons disobey an Act of Parliament; and ought the House of Commons to disobey an Act of Parliament? With regard to the first question, I think it is obvious that the House of Commons can disobey an Act of Parliament; the second question, whether it ought, is a matter which I must leave to the conscience of the House.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME).
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)in moving a Resolution allocating the time to be devoted to the discussion of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, said he hoped the House would admit the necessity for his Motion under the circum stances in which they stood. It seemed to him that they were all agreed as to the object of the Bill. [Cries of "No."] Well, he thought it was admitted on all hands that the making of provision for evicted tenants or their representatives was an essential part of the scheme of legislation and that without such provision it was acknowledged that the agrarian question could not be settled or put in a fair way of settlement. Therefore, if the Act of 1903 was to accomplish what was expected of it, it was important that this question should be dealt with. The means adopted to obtain this end had been voluntary means, but the Bill now before the House proposed to go further than that, and complete the work of the Act of 1903 by applying compulsion in those cases where voluntary effort had failed. There was no need for him to quote figures to the House; with these statistics hon. Members were quite familiar. The difference between the two sides of the House was not the end they had in view and what they all desired to see fulfilled, but the means by which that end was to be brought about. The Government felt that it would be a most unhappy thing if the good intentions of the Act of 1903 were defeated for want of effectual means to carry them out. The Bill before them proposed to apply the principle of compulsion, not only in regard to untenanted land but also in regard to land occupied by tenants who happened to hold holdings from which previous tenants had been evicted. The discussion on Wednesday last wandered over a wide field and although it only disposed formally of the first three lines of Clause 1 it took so wide a range that the questions of compulsion and expropriation were fully discussed and the Chairman virtually warned the House that the discussion should be taken as disposing of these two questions. That being so there remained for further discussion the other heads of the Bill, and the time table he submitted

  1193
  to the House provided, in his opinion, ample time for their discus non. There was the discussion on the tribunal which was to determine the particulars of land taken compulsorily, and also to fix the amount of compensation to be awarded to dispossessed tenants; there was the question of finance, not, he thought, a very widely controversial matter: and the remaining point was the change of tenure of the Estates Commissioners. So that the net result was of the five main heads under which the Bill was founded, two of them had already been discussed, and for the remaining three substantially important subjects, the Government felt justified in coming to the conclusion that the time assigned under his Resolution would be amply sufficient. They were not altogether without experience in this matter, and whatever opinion might be entertained with regard to this time table system, in a case like the one before them it did answer its purpose, viz., to prevent aimless and unnecessary expenditure of time in general discussion; whilst, on the other hand, it gave sufficient time for discussion on each particular point, and had the effect of riveting the attention of the Committee upon those points. He submitted his Resolution to the House confident of their approval.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, including the Financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded with in the following manner:—(a) that Clauses 1 and 2 and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, if and so far as not previously disposed of, be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) that the Report stage of the Financial Resolution and the remaining clauses of the Bill, and any new Government clauses and any new Government schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day, and that the Chair man report the Bill to the House without Question put; (c) chat one allotted day be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and that all matters necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion be
  1194
  proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day. After this order comes into operation, any day (other than Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this order on which the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of the Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day, followed by the Bill. At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules he-shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be. Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on he Bill for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House." At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this order relates shall not, on any day on which any proceedings or business are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. After the passing of this order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Evicted Tenants (Ire land) Bill (including the Financial Resolution relating thereto) stand as first

  1195
  Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to pospone a clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Prime Minister had got so accustomed to moving these Resolutions, and the House had got so familiar with them, that he did not seem to regard it as in the least necessary to make any serious attempt to defend the proposals he made. Habit had come to his assistance, and now he thought five or six minutes were enough to recommend a guillotine Resolution which formerly he and his Party spent hours in denouncing, and now he regarded it as the most natural thing in the world for the House to deprive itself, not once, but constantly and perpetually, of all its rights of discussion and debate. Some times the right hon. Gentleman moved it before debate had commenced at all, and sometimes after the debate had continued for a night; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's patience had ever extended over two nights before he came down to the House and asked them to give him these exceptional and usually abused powers. He for one had not for many years been prepared to maintain that the House could wholly do without these exceptional measures, but there was a great distinction between using them exceptionally and using them without any provocation as part of the ordinary routine business of the day. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with them as he usually dealt with the Eleven o'clock Rule, which was suspended without pro vocation. Those Members who had had experience of previous Parliaments would agree that, while the guillotine by compartments had been used by successive Governments for a long period, it had never been applied in the manner or to the extent to which the right hon. Gentle man now used it. He remembered two great controversial Bills, one brought in by a Radical Government, the Parish Councils Bill, and the other by a Unionist Government, the Education Bill of 1902. In the case of the Parish Councils Bill they had thirty-four days in Committee, and in the case of the Education Bill he believed they had forty days in Com-
  1196
  mittee. It had been reserved to this Government in the last session and in this to come down, and without justification, reason, or adequate public necessity, and before the discussion had either begun at all or when it had gone only a little way, to say, We cannot allow the House fully to discuss our measure; we must apply closure by compartments. The statement of the right hon. Gentle man that closure by compartments had the great advantage of concentrating the attention of the House upon the really important matters was a ludicrously inaccurate account of what took place. One of the grave objections, indeed, to this method of procedure was that it did not concentrate attention on the important parts of a Bill. There had never yet been a case to his knowledge when under such conditions the important points really had been discussed. Let them take the right hon. Gentleman's last effort in this direction, when it was moved in regard to the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. There were vast fragments of that measure which were never discussed either in the Committee stage or on Report. Public attention was not focussed on those points, and the Government escaped the pile of criticism to which their predecessors were subjected. No doubt this procedure saved the Government—not very careful draftsmen as a rule in framing their measures—a great many of the inevitable consequences of criticism. It enabled them to escape from many difficult positions without suffering defeats at the hands, not of the Opposition, who were too small a band to be able to defeat the Government on Committee points, but of lion. Gentlemen opposite, who, although they did not always agree upon the details of the measures brought in by their leaders, did always agree in preventing those details being discussed. Their ideal was that the voting should take place in this House and all the discussion in another place—that all the power should be here and all the debates there. That was their method of filling up the cup. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the rather airy and sanguine spirit in which he had addressed himself to his Motion, must himself be conscious that under his leadership last session and this the House had become familiar with this method of procedure, so that it now considered it part of its ordinary practice

  1197
  and not an exceptional measure to be debated and justified. The drug which had to be administered to the House by the previous Government, the right hon. Gentleman now gave them as their daily food. He was rather amused at the cheers which greeted the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was going to give ample time to the discusssion of the Bill. When he reflected on the political and Parliamentary principles of the able and energetic Party which represented the Nationalists of Ireland as to the time that ought to be taken in discussing measures, their amazing fertility of objection, their amplitude of rhetorical effort, which he was the first to recognise; when he heard them cheer the closure on an Irish Bill, dealing with Irish questions, which has been debated for eight hours, and for which only two more days were to be allowed for the Committee stage and one for Report, he was forced to say how differently they estimated the necessity for discussing a measure when Members from the North of Ireland were anxious to discuss it.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Half the Ulster Members are on our side.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was a question it was not necesary to go into. What he was endeavouring to point out was that the same power of eloquence existed among his hon. friends who represented the North of Ireland, and they claimed the same right of discussion as lion. Members below the gangway. There should be some possibility of comparison between the two cases, some parity of treatment extended to those who represented other constituencies in Ireland. Whenever a Government responsible for business came forward with a proposal of this kind the majority would, of course, support them. But he respectfully said to the House that for two sessions now they had been on an inclined plane in respect of those measures for stopping debate. If the process was allowed to go on much longer and was allowed to become the habitual practice of the House, its powers over the details of legislation would have gone for ever. Not only was it handing over, in effect the legislation of the country in all its details to Ministers, who, conscious that their legislative efforts would not be subjected
  1198
  to any minute revision, would become more and more reckless, not only in form, but in the substance of the measures they brought forward, but it would add neither to the dignity, to the utility, nor to the interest of the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he had listened for a long time to the kind of speech just delivered, the indignant protest of the champion of free discussion in the House. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps the most interesting speaker in the House, and the delight must be great of new Members of the House to hear the protests of the champion of free discussion and the solemn denunciations of the right hon. Gentleman. But it was not easy to forget the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents in this respect. Ho of all men in the House was a past master in bringing forward this kind of Motion. ["No., no."] For years the Nationalist and other Members had suffered from the action of the right hon. Gentleman when he was in power in depriving the House of every shred of freedom of discussion. But on the general question the right hon. Gentleman—supposing that they could take him seriously—took up a position which ought to command the serious consideration of the House. They had now come to the pass that not with standing all their new rules and the constant use of the closure no Government, even supported with an over whelming majority, could hope to pass serious and contentious measures without the use of devices of this kind. The House of Commons would never recover its rights of free speech by any set of rules they chose to devise. The only way was by lightening the load of business, which weighed heavier and heavier on the House. The Irish Members had fought against coercion for Ireland and the suspension of the right of trial by jury, but whom a measure was introduced to benefit Ireland the right hon. Gentleman was scandalised to find that the Nationalist Party did not offer the same kind of opposition as they had formerly offered to coercion. What was the case for or against this particular application of the closure? The right hon. Gentleman twitted the Prime Minister with having made a speech of only five minutes in justification of his proposal. But the justification of the Motion was to be found not in

  1199
  the five minutes speech of to-day, but in the first night's proceedings in Committee on the Bill. The proceedings of last Wednesday constituted the speech in support of this Motion, Before they were allowed to consider or discuss one single syllable in the Bill, they were met by a dilatory Motion to report progress, which they were told by the mover of it was not a serious Motion, and was only intended for the purpose of having a general discussion of those Amendments on which they desired to know what the action of the Government would be. It seemed to him to be a most irregular Motion and a most irregular discussion. But having elicited a statement from the Government they then proceeded further to discuss the Motion, and to show how earnest they were about it, they actually divided when the question was put from the Chair. What were the proceedings during the evening? The right hon. Gentleman was surprised that he him self had spoken only once. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must take them for fools. It was not only the Ulster Members. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of giving time to the Ulster Members. Ulster Members had taken up very little time. The time was largely taken up by a number of English Members on the benches above the Opposition gangway, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and men of that character. The hon. Baronet would acquit him of any desire to say anything offensive to him, but what he had in his mind was the character which the hon. Baronet had given of himself at the last election, when he said to his constituents in the City of London that his great recommendation for Parliament was that he was able to speak at any time, on anything, and for any length. It was hon. Members of that kind who had continued the discussion on Wednesday and all through the evening, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Chairman of Committees had repeatedly to intervene to protest against irrelevance and repetition. And so the evening went on, and the Leader of the Opposition was surprised that he and his friends did not take a hand to help that kind of obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman had not made any case whatever against this Motion. And for-
  1200
  sooth, he had spoken—it was laughable almost—about the precedents of the Parish Councils Bill and the Education Bill of 1902, and asked why they were only giving three days to this Bill, when thirty days were given in Committee on the Parish Councils Bill, and he did not know how many days in Committee on the Education Bill. But what possible parity was there between the two cases? This short measure was a simple Bill which merely carried into effect the pledge given by the Tory Party and the landlord party in that House in 1903 to restore the evicted tenants in Ireland to their homes, an object which they had pledged themselves to carry out, and without that pledge the Land Act of 1903, as they knew well, would never have been carried at all. On the object of the Bill the Prime Minister was right in saying there was complete agreement. Was there a man from Ulster, or the City of London, or elsewhere, who would get up and say that he was against the object of this Bill? Then it was a Bill on which they were agreed.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I have no hesitation in getting up in my place and stating that I am utterly against the objects of this Bill, which I take to be a Bill for taking away land—
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid nobody accused the hon. Gentleman of a want of courage; he was against the object of the Bill—that was, against the carrying out of the pledge given by the landlord and Tory Party in Ireland that they would, as part of the bargain of 1903, restore the evicted tenants to their farms. There were only two or three contentious points in the Bill. One of them was the question of compulsion. As the Prime Minister had rightly said, that was discussed at great length, a decision was come to, and the Chairman of Committees declared that he would not permit a second discussion on the point. The next great contentious principle was that compulsion should be applied to that class of men who were called "grabbers" or "planters" in Ire land. That also was discussed at great length, a decision was come to upon it and it was disposed of. All that remained to be discussed was the tribunal to decide upon the price, the alteration of

  1201
  the tenure of the Estates Commissioners, and one or two comparatively trifling matters in addition. He therefore asserted that the serious and important questions had already been discussed and decided.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I rise to order. I wish to correct a statement.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is not the time to correct a statement. If the hon. Member wishes to do that the House, I am sure, will hear him afterwards.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he had practically finished. He merely wished to say that the really contentious points in the Bill, certainly the most serious and contentious, had been disposed of. The remaining points could easily be disposed of after the fullest amount of discussion in the time proposed by the Resolution, and when the right hon. Gentlemen indicated as he did in his speech that really the Motion was not necessary at all, and that there was no intention to have a long discussion, and that without the Motion the discussion would be confined within proper limits—if that was his view and it had been communicated to the Government this Motion would never have been moved. But they were in this position. They were coming to the end of the session. It was a matter of the most vital importance in Ireland for the sake not only of the limited class of people known as the evicted tenants, but of the whole country and the peace of the whole country during the coming winter that this Bill should be passed, and the Government would be wanting in their duty if they hesitated to take steps to secure that it would be passed within a reasonable time. He trusted that under the circumstances the House would pass the Bill, that they would pass it speedily, and that with that object in view they would come to the calm consideration of those portions of the Bill which remained to be discussed. Besides, they would find it was only a small section of the Irish Members who had any objection to the Bill, that the opposition came largely from English Members and that not only the West and South of Ireland, but almost the entire representation of Ire-
  1202
  land in that House, with very few exceptions, was anxious to see it carried into law.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid they had not been given a single instance where a guillotine Motion of this character had been brought forward under similar circumstances, and before such a proposal was submitted they ought to have been furnished with some precedent for bringing it forward in such a manner. So far as the actual Bill was concerned, he thought they had received a sufficient answer both in the speeches of the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, because the right hon. Gentleman, supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman, had said that on Wednesday the two great principles of the Bill had been disposed of; and after that statement no one could accuse those on that side of the House of having been guilty of obstruction in discussing the proposals of the measure. But with his great experience, the right hon. Gentleman knew that the Second Reading was the occasion for raising objections to principle, and in Committee they had to deal with the details, to which many hon. Members at once saw reason to object, some of them being entirely novel. Two or three things had happened this session which really lifted this matter into a rather different light. They had recently had a discussion, the text of which was that the voice of the House of Commons ought to prevail; but the Government had consistently said in connection with every important Bill they had brought forward, not that the voice of the House of Commons was to prevail, but that it was to be muzzled in order to prevent proper discussion. Under the closure by allotted days the questions on which the Government had difficulties were nearly always relegated to that particular half-hour in the evening when they had their majority behind them, when arguments could not be used, and when the Opposition were powerless. It was rather curious that the Government which said that the voice of the House of Commons should prevail had done so much to remove legislation from the control of the House by preventing discussion. The debate on the Standing Orders was guillotined, and when Bills were allowed to remain in Committee of the Whole House, as, for example,

  1203
  the Army Bill, the Insect Pests Bill, and now the Evicted Tenants Bill, the use of the guillotine prevented that full consideration and discussion which they had a right to claim. They were bound to refer to these considerations which had arisen for the first time this session. They were quite justified in asking for a fuller explanation from the Prime Minister, who had been so closely connected with matters relating to procedure in the House. What was there to make this subject a matter of urgency? There had been no obstruction this session and no waste of time; therefore, the entire responsibility was with the Government, because they had allowed the session to get nearly to the end of July without bringing forward their Bills. The Government had mismanaged their programme, and the Prime Minister was now asking for an entirely new form of procedure. He thought they were fully justified in opposing this attempt to guillotine all reasonable discussion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGremarked that the Prime Minister in moving the Motion had said that all parties in the House were practically agreed upon the object of the Bill. He thought Unionist Members for Ireland and Unionist Members generally had made it amply plain that they were not so agreed. If they were all agreed upon the matter where would be the necessity for the Resolution? The hon. Member for Waterford had endeavoured to convince the House that the object of the Bill was simply to reinstate evicted ten ants. That was the object of the Bill of 1903; the object of this Bill was to allow the Estates Commissioners to acquire tenanted and other land compulsorily. It was misleading the House to say that the primary and essential object of the Bill was the reinstatement of evicted ten ants. It was upon those two grounds chiefly that Unionist Members, and especially Irish Unionist Members, objected to the Bill, and, therefore, to any closure by compartment Resolution being passed in respect of it. The hon. Member for Waterford had called it a short, simple Bill, but it contained some seventeen or eighteen clauses introducing the new principle of compulsion in the acquisition of land in Ireland, which everybody knew perfectly well would lead from provid-
  1204
  ing land for evicted tenants to providing land for congested districts, and thence in a short time to the transference of land generally from the landlord to the tenant. That might be all right and proper, but he and his friends maintained that that was a question of such magnitude and a question so directly excluded from the Act of 1903, that a Bill containing that principle should be given the fullest discussion. The discussion should not be cut down to a paltry day or two as was proposed. They all knew why the Government had pro posed the Resolution. The chief reason was that they had delayed to such an inordinately late time the introduction of the Bill. The House would agree with him that to introduce one of the first-class measures of the session at such a late day was not fair. It was not to be expected that the Bill could receive due and proper discussion if the session was to end at anything like the ordinary time. He had tried to point out to the House at the earlier stages of the Bill that it was not asked for. The evicted tenants clauses in the Act of 1903 were working to the satisfaction of everybody except apparently the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Estates Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Waterford. Everybody else realised that those clauses were doing all that was expected of them. It seemed to be very much out of place for the hon. Member for Waterford to get up each day as he had done in the various debates on the Bill, and to throw the onus on Unionist Members for opposing the Bill. The reasonable view which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford ought to take was that they were precluded from asking for the powers conferred by this Bill because at the passing of the Act of 1903 they were given a measure which came up to their demands and expectations, and under which a very much larger number of evicted tenants had been provided for than the Nationalist Party ever thought existed. During the debates upon the Bill of 1903 the number of evicted tenants to be provided for was put at between 400 and 800, but the Chief Secretary had informed them that already over 1,000 had been dealt with under that Act. The Unionist Members from Ireland, although they were comparatively few, represented one-third of the population, and they maintained that there was no necessity for

  1205
  the Bill. The Act of 1903, every line of which was agreed to by Nationalists and Liberals alike, was accepted as a settlement, and from that day to this there had been no demand made that compulsory powers should be given to the Estates Commissioners. That body seemed to have suddenly discovered a pressing necessity for compulsory powers, although they were receiving daily accounts from both landlords and tenants an Ireland of the hardships and the injustice which were being inflicted under the present system of reinstating these tenants. He could cite cases in which the most undesirable class of tenants were being reinstated—men who owed from six to nine years rent, not on account of any political fight, but simply because they had turned out to be quite incapable of farming their land to advantage. For those reasons he failed to see where the necessity arose for giving the Commissioners greater powers than they now possessed. The Prime Minister had said the necessity for such a Bill as this was agreed to by all sides of the House, but it passed his comprehension how any person could make such a statement as that, because the Unionist Members from Ireland had opposed the Bill strenuously on the First Reading and upon each succeeding stage. The right hon. Gentleman had harped upon the old point that they all desired to seethe evicted tenants reinstated. It was quite true that they all desired to see the respectable evicted tenants reinstated, but he con tended that the greater number of 'them had already been reinstated, and therefore there was no necessity to grant compulsory powers for the purpose. They also objected to the Bill because of the power which it gave and which they maintained would be exercised—although the Chief Secretary desired that the power should not be exercised—by the Estates Commissioners to turn out perfectly respectable new tenants who were now occupying farms formerly in possession of evicted tenants. He and his friends sincerely believed, and in fact it was admitted the other night by the Attorney General for Ireland, that many of these so-called new tenants would be turned out bag and baggage and that other farms would be provided for them. The Unionist Members could not stand by and see a
  1206
  law passed which would enable two or three Commissioners to go down to such a man as he had described and say, "You must leave this farm because the man who had it before you desires to come back. So far as we can see there can be no hope of peace in this district so long as you occupy the farm." The Chief Secretary described this man as obstinate and as a centre of disturbance. He and his friends took the view that if one of these farms was held in a legal way and especially if he—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's remarks refer to the provisions of the Bill, and they are not relevant to the Resolution now before the House.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he would only add that they had been told that the two great questions of compulsion and the taking of untenanted land had been fully discussed the other day. He did not admit that. The discussion of those two great principles was disposed of in seven hours, and it was because the Prime Minister's Resolution would shorten debate on the most important points that he objected to it.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTcalled attention to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he resented the tone in which the Prime Minister said it would be an unhappy thing if the good intentions of the Act of 1903 should fail. The right hon. Gentle man had based his proposal for the undue limitation of the discussion of this Bill on the desire that the failure of the Act of 1903 should be prevented. He could tell the Prime Minister that he had heard different stories in regard to the Act of 1903. It was not failing; it was doing its work well, subject to one drawback, namely, that they had not enough money to carry it out. If the right hon. Gentleman would only give the Act of 1903—the evicted tenants clauses as well as the others—a fair trial for a few years, not only would the tenants of Ireland become owners of their farms, but the evicted tenants would be quietly and satisfactorily settled on holdings.
  CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)said the hon. Member for South Antrim made a number of well-reasoned speeches the other day in which he pointed out with perfect truth that the substance of this Bill was to be found in the compulsory powers to reinstate the evicted tenants and in the compulsory powers given to the tribunal to acquire untenanted land. He stated his objection to both these things with great argumentative force, and he was quite justified in doing so. The hon. Gentleman had repeated his objections to day. He had said he vehemently objected to the Bill, and of course he was entitled to object. But the fact that he objected to the Bill was no reason why he should go on repeating day after day the badness of the Bill. The badness of a Bill was not the measure of the length of time at which it should be discussed. The House had discussed the Bill on the Second Reading and on the first day of the Committee stage. On those occasions the two most import ant points were discussed at such length as to disentitle him or any other Members to reopen or repeat those points. It was a mistake for the Opposition to think that because the Bill was a bad one they should be allowed great length of time for its discussion. The only difficulty he felt about the Motion of the Prime Minister was that it almost seemed to be something in the nature of an insult to the House to suppose that any rational body of men would wish to; occupy more than three days in the discussion of what was left of this measure, Of course, as he had said already, if the vehemence of the Opposition entailed' weeks and months of discussion, the de bate might go on to the crack of doom. When they had discussed one point let them proceed to the next. All he could say was that, if three days were not enough for the Committee stage and the Report stage of this Bill, then there was an end of Parliamentary discussion in that House. They could not carry out business if great length of time was devoted to the discussion, not of the principle of compulsion or the power of the Estates Com missioners in certain cases to restore evicted tenants to their old holdings, even although they were now in the occupation of other tenants, but simply what was left, namely, who where the Commissioners to whom the duty should be entrusted,
  1208
  what power of appeal there should be from those men, the financial arrangements for the working out of the Bill, and the tenure of the-Estates Commissioners. If they could not discuss those points in two whole days then it was all up with Parliamentary discussion, and a Resolution, of this kind became a Parliamentary necessity. The late Government gave in regard to the Aliens Bill a corresponding length of time, and hon. Gentlemen said then that it would be a bad precedent. The late Government did not care; they had to get the Bill through, and they gob it through. If the House wasted time as they were doing at present on the Resolution which might be devoted to the-discussion of the measure itself, then he quite agreed that the guillotine would fall. It ought to be the object of the House to give a reasonable time only for the discussion of Parliamentary measures. The Government knew perfectly well that they could not hope to get the Bill through in two or three days, and so they had most reluctantly to come to the House in order to be armed with the power. He was afraid the time given to-the House would be largely wasted. Members on the Opposition side would discuss not the important but the un important points, and it might be there fore that the Bill would go to the House of Lords with some matters undiscussed which might very well have been discussed. That would not be the fault of the Government. With reference to the statement that the Bill might have been introduced at an earlier date, he had to say that it could not have been introduced earlier because the Government had not the material. They created an extra staff and put the Treasury to great expense in order to find out the facts, and they brought in the Bill as early as they could. The House had already discussed the two main principles of the Bill Nothing remained but the machinery, and the time they allowed the House to discuss the machinery was ample. He challenged hon. Gentlemen to say that they had not left ample time for the discussion of the proposals of the-Bill if the House would only devote the time to those points and not to idle irrelevant matters.
  MR. WALTER LONG: said he was sorry that the Government

  1209
  had found themselves unable to agree. The Prime Minister had told the House a few minutes ago that one of the results of this Motion would be that full time would be given to the discussion of the more important points of the Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsaid he hoped that would be so.
  MR. WALTER LONGexpressed the hope that the Prime Minister would not be disappointed. He was directing attention to the fact that the Chief Secretary did not share the view of the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary had just stated that he thought the time would be devoted to irrelevant discussions and that no notice would be taken at all of the more important points.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid so.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary might arrive at an agreement as to the effect of the Resolution before they came before the House. The Chief Secretary had stated that the Aliens Bill was a precedent for the course they were now taking. But that was exactly the contrary of the fact. The Aliens Bill was given five day's in Committee arid in addition the closure Motion was not moved until the Bill had been three days in Committee, showing that there was a marked difference between what was done in regard to the Aliens Bill and what was now pro posed. The Chief Secretary had complained somewhat unnecessarily that the present short debate was a waste of Parliamentary time. If that meant anything, it meant that the comment was well founded that the Government in future were to select their own legislation, and, having passed it by their Party majority through the Second Reading stage, they, without waiting to see what the attitude of the Opposition might be to the measure, were to decide what share of Parliamentary time was to be devoted to its consideration. He saw no waste of time whatever in considering a proposal of this kind. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Waterford speak as he had done with regard to the position of the Unionist Party with reference to this question. He had told them that they were prepared to object to any measure intended for the benefit of Ireland. He
  1210
  could hardly believe his ears when he heard that statement. The hon. Gentle man knew perfectly well that they had passed many measures for the benefit or Ireland. But in reference to this particular ease, while they accepted the principle repeatedly with regard to reinstating the evicted tenants with whom they were dealing in 1903—while they agreed that these should be reinstated, they never agreed that powers of so wholesale a character should be placed in the hands of any body in order to carry out a reinstatement which had gone many leagues beyond anything ever contemplated by any Party in the last Parliament. It had been said that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Armagh (in Committee, to report Progress) was dilatory. It was nothing of the kind. The Motion was meant to ascertain what were the intentions of the Government, and they had succeeded be yond their imagination. The Chief Secretary had complained that they had de bated the two main principles of the Bill, and stated that all the rest of the Bill was mere machinery. He was astonished that the Chief Secretary should have said that the question of an appeal to a tribunal for fixing the purchase price was a matter of machinery. He did not think that the Chairman of Committees would support the view the right hon. Gentleman had advanced in regard to Clause?. The ruling of the Chairman was that if they moved to reject Clause? all further references to the question of compulsion would be precluded. But in order to show that they were trying to meet the direction of the Chairman, they took the course which the Chairman thought would meet the interests of debate; they did not move to omit that clause, and they made a Motion for a direct debate on compulsion. But the Chief Secretary knew full well that there were parts of the Bill which they were now approaching, in which a great deal more than machinery was involved. What had to be considered was the form of the machinery by which effect was to be given to these compulsory powers. The Chief Secretary had stated that they were wasting the time of the House in asking that more time should be given, but in what the Chief Secretary called "mere machinery" they had to consider the not only existing rights of

  1211
  the owners of the land, who no doubt would have short shrift, but the rights of the existing tenants who had hitherto had advocates on the other side of the House, who were now prepared to hand them over to the more clamorous demands of the original tenants. The way in which those powers were to be exercised, the way in which those men were to be safeguarded, if the object of the Bill was to heal the sore—all these were not matters of machinery. Some of them were of vital importance to the existing tenants, many of whom were as poor as the tenants the Government were now asking to restore to their old holdings, and time ought to be given for their discussion. So far as he was concerned, he did not believe that in the debates that took place the other day a single Member on the Opposition side of the House advanced an argument which was not directly germane to the questions under discussion and practical. The proof of that was that the debates both days were brought to a conclusion in the ordinary way without the Minister in charge having to move the closure. That sup ported his view that there was not the slightest intention on the Opposition side of the House to do anything but put the case of those they represented before the House. That was the view which governed them last week and would govern them still. He regretted that the Government had found it necessary to intervene at this stage with a Motion of this kind without waiting to see what demands on the time of the House were likely to be made; and if there was time wasted the blame and the responsibility would rest on those who had initiated it.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid that the hon. Member for Water-ford had referred in almost indignant terms of protest to the fact that certain Unionist Members for England had tried to take part in the discussion. He ventured to protest, on the other hand, that this was still the United Kingdom. They had not yet passed a Home Rule Bill. As a representative of an English constituency he considered he had a perfect right to criticise any measure which affected any part of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members below the gangway did not hesitate to take
  1212
  part in debates on English Bills, and he did not see why English Members should not take an intelligent interest in Irish affairs. The Prime Minister in introducing this Resolution said he did not think that there ought to be any serious opposition to it, because they, on the Opposition side of the House, as a Party, were committed to the rein statement of the evicted tenants. He was not in the House when the Land Act of 1903 was passed, but he under stood that the Conservative Party were pledged only to reinstate the evicted tenants on the campaign estates. The hon. Member for East Mayo had then stated that there never had been more than 800 evicted tenants and that these had been reduced to 400; and therefore when the Government were going to force through in a high-handed manner a measure to reinstate 2,000 he did. not think that they were acting unreasonably if they protested. They had decided two important points—that the principle of compulsion should be applied generally, and applied not only to untenanted but to tenanted land. There were, how ever, certain very important principles yet to be settled, such as who was to decide what money was to be given for an estate. The Bill embodied for the first time in history that the person who bought land was also to fix the price. Then the Bill was going to divert money which had been devoted to a certain purpose by the Act of 1903, to another purpose. If the Resolution were passed the status of the Estates Commissioners and the tribunal to decide what amount of money was to be given would never be discussed. The real reason why the Bill had been brought forward was that it was necessary to the Government and to hon. Members below the gangway. Without it the Government could not have the support of the Irish Party, or at any rate, the benefit of their neutrality; and the Irish Party, whose political repute had been somewhat blown upon, would get their consolation prize after the fiasco of the Irish Council Bill, and be able to go back to their constituents with something in their hands.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Member for Waterford had stated that if this Bill was opposed on that side of the House they would be going back on the express

  1213
  pledges and undertakings given by the Tory Party in 1903. He most strongly objected to the Bill of that year as the worst ever introduced into the House of Commons, and voted against both the Second and the Third Readings. The present proceedings showed the futility of the former Bill. The proposal as to the allocation of time would, however, not only affect the Evicted Tenants Bill but the Water Board Bill for the Metropolis. The latter was fixed for to-morrow at a quarter past eight o'clock, but hon. Members interested in it would under this Resolution have to discuss it in the early hours of the morning. That was a double reason for objecting to the course which the Prime Minister asked the House to pursue. He had been a good many years in the House, and he never recollected closure by compartments being applied so brutally as it had been this session. They had had on this Bill one day's discussion, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that that was because it contained one vital principle. He did not deny that the principle of the Bill was vital to Ireland, but it might also be applied to England. Hon. Members below the gangway on that side were not interested in England, while hon. Members above the gangway opposite were desirous of purchasing the support of hon. Members below the gangway on that side. [Cries of "Oh."] Well he would say "acquiring." He did not want to be offensive. "Purchase" was a question of barter, and there was no doubt the sup port of hon. Gentlemen below the gang way would be given in consequence of this Bill. He would, however, use the word "acquiring." Hon. Members like himself, sitting above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House, were therefore more likely to be fair-minded with regard to this question than other hon. Members, because they had nothing to gain and nothing to lose in regard to it. All they desired was that justice should be done. He had no desire to obstruct the Bill; on the contrary, he wanted to get away. The Government ought not to be allowed to curtail discussion in this way. They might say that they did it because the end of July was approaching, but the hon. and learned Member for Waterford insinuated that if Ireland had been granted Home Rule there would have been no congestion of
  1214
  business. Irish business had, however, occupied very little of the time of the House this session, with the exception of the abortive discussion on the Irish Council Bill. The real reason was to be found in the Westminster Gazette, which, quoting from the Patronage Secretary, said the Government had put in their programme enough to last for three sessions. That was a Radical organ which agreed with the opinion of a gentleman who ought to know the condition of affairs better than anybody else. This Bill was not even in the King's Speech, but yet at the end of July the Government introduced the closure in order to prevent discussion on it. Under the new regulation the greater part of the Committee business of the House was done in another place, but they hoped that when measures were considered of sufficient importance to be dealt with in Committee in the House of Commons they would have a reasonable opportunity of discussion. They found, however, that the conditions which prevailed upstairs were to prevail in that House. If the Government had nothing to say in support of their Bills the closure was resorted to, and Bills were to be forced through without adequate discussion. He did not agree with the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the House of Lords should have nothing to say in regard to Bills which had passed the House of Commons, but if they were not allowed to discuss the matter there, and the House of Lords were abolished, right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench would be responsible to no one but themselves. The question was a much more important one than that of forcing the Evicted Tenants Bill through, because the Government had come to the conclusion that it was not only necessary for them to introduce a Bill, but that if they introduced a Bill He was to be forced through without discussion, without an opportunity being given to the country of knowing what it was about, simply because a Radical Government had fathered the Bill. He had great belief in the privileges of the House of Commons, and considered that all their privileges were due to the free discussion and debate which had been in the past allowed. He denied that the Leader of the Opposition, had done a great deal to curtail the freedom of discussion in that House. The right

  1215
  hon. Gentleman had given great latitude for discussion to the Party opposite, and although he was rather opposed to the alterations which his right hon. friend made in the rules in 1902, those alterations did not stifle discussion in anything like the way which was now attempted. He was afraid that their voices and their pro tests would be useless, but all he could say was that if right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not do better than this in regard to business, it was time they gave way to a Government which could carry on business in the old-fashioned way, because he believed the feeling of the country was not in favour of the rights of minorities being ignored.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he was not going to enter upon the stormy path of Irish affairs, as he had never trodden it, perhaps wisely, but there was a point of view which came home to him in regard to this matter. There was an English Land Bill before the House, and he supposed the same measure which was being dealt out to this Bill would be dealt out to that. The Prime Minister had said that there would be no hardship on hon. Members in the course pursued in this case, as the principles had been adequately discussed, and plenty of time had been allowed for the discussion of details. His experience in land legislation was, however, that the details were the most important part of the Bill. Liberty of speech had always been allowed in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had twitted his right hon. friend with choking discussion, but the measures which lie took paled before the Resolution before the House. The point taken by his hon. friend as to the effect this Resolution would have upon important private business was a most important one, because Members would be invited to discuss an intricate question after eleven o'clock at night. He knew that the same proposals would be applied to the English measure, and that affected him, and "out of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh." There fore he made this protest.
  MR. BARRIEfully agreed with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in reference to the Resolution and was surprised to find
  1216
  the Prime Minister saying that this Bill was generally agreed upon, and that if it were not passed the good intentions of the Land Act of 1903 would be defeated. Such a statement coming from the Prime Minister was a little astounding, as the number of evicted tenants reinstated under that Act considerably exceeded the expectations entertained at the time and the number which were supposed to be in existence. They were told that the provisions of the last Act so far as they affected evicted tenants had broken down; but in view of that fact that could not be so. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said he was always in favour of free discussion, but when they on that side asked to have a discussion on the Chief Secretary's Vote, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his followers below the gangway were pressing on the Government that the discussion of the Vote for a Department which occupied a secondary place in Irish public affairs should have precedence. It therefore appeared that the hon. and learned Gentleman was only interested in free discussion when he was interested in a measure. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that had been made that the purposes of this discussion did not appertain, and were not proper, to the operations of the Bill under debate. He represented an agricultural constituency, and he protested against this Bill very strongly because it laid aside the case of the rent-paying, self-respecting farmer in favour of the fanner who did not recognise any moral or honourable obligations. Who were the evicted tenants on whose behalf this extreme piece of legislation was being pressed upon the House? It was wanted for those who were described as "wounded soldiers in the land war;" but they should be provided for by those who caused them to be wounded. They knew the Nationalist Party funds were now in a very prosperous state.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member's remarks did not appear to be in order.
  MR. BARRIEsaid he, of course, bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and would conclude by saying that he only wished to protest in the strongest possible manner against a measure which affected every class in Ireland.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid there was one thing that could be said in favour of the Motion—it was thoroughly logical. Its one object appeared to be to strangle all debate, and bring the House of Commons into abject contempt. It carried out the theory of the Government that the work of the House of Commons was simply to register the opinions of this wisest of all Governments, the Government which could win no by elections. The burning zeal felt for the Bill was shown by the attendance of Members in the House. Only a short time since he counted nine Members in the House—three of them Nationalists, and one Labour Member. Everyone knew that the Bill was a mere sop to buy off the Nationalist Party. All the Members from the North of Ireland, as trustees for their constituents who had been described in the past as the "lonely loyalists," felt that it was their duty to see that the Bill did not rob them. If the Government wanted to do something generous for the men who were finding support at the hands of the Nationalists let them not do it at the expense of the loyal constituencies. It should be done by the Nationalist Party who were able to find funds from all parts of the world. He protested against this attempt to silence discussion.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLchallenged the proposition of the Prime Minister that the principle of the Bill had been admitted on all sides of the House. There was an agreement that it was a desirable thing that the question of the evicted tenants should be adjusted by fair, honourable, and honest means, and that principle was agreed upon in the Act of 1903. What they agreed upon was to be found in an Act of Parliament. [Mr. BIRRELL: Why did you not carry it out?] If the only way of carrying out the concordat of 1903 was that which the Government were taking they had a very curious notion of carrying out their duty in respect to it. The concordat in 1903, agreed to in terms by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and hon. Gentlemen opposite, distinctly promised as an essential condition of the settlement by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who was in charge of the Bill, that there was to be no compulsion of any kind. It was all to be carried out as a matter of free
  1218
  bargain; and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for East Mayo went out of their way to reiterate to the House that they would be no party to any demand for compulsion as against so-called "grabbers" or "planters." It was therefore ludicrous to say that the Bill was merely carrying out the principle already adopted, and embodied in the Act of 1903, which had been steadily and successfully administered ever since on the line of no compulsion and free bargaining. There had been no suggestion in any part of the House that the other great object of the Act of 1903, namely, the conversion of ordinary tenants into purchasing owners, was in any way to give priority to the question of evicted tenants; the settlement was effected on the lines that those objects were to run pari passu without preference being given to either in favour of the other. The hon. and learned Member had said that the object of the Bill was merely to carry out the pledges given in 1903. For the first time in his experience the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Party behind him were, he regretted to have to say, themselves deliberately and flagrantly violating an honourable pledge given in 1903. That pledge had been referred to over and over again, not merely in the House but in another place. Everyone knew perfectly well that had it not been for a distinct and honourable agreement that there was to be no sort of compulsion for the restoration of evicted tenants, the provision made in the Act of 1903 for these tenants would not have escaped criticism nor received the support it had obtained from all parts of the House. Therefore, he denied that this Bill in any shape or form was carrying out the Act of 1903; on the contrary, it was a violation of the principle of the Act. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, who had spoken of the changed attitude of Members below the gangway on the question of the closure, had said that their opposition to closure had been in connection with coercion Bills. But what was there in the Bill under discussion but coercion? There never was introduced a Bill which contained more of the principle of coercion than the present measure; compulsion was

  1219
  to be found in every clause of it, from beginning to end. It proposed to compel the landlords to part with their property and to compel the sitting tenants to surrender their holdings. If that was not a measure of coercion he did not know what was. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his followers were consistent, this was a measure of coercion which they should oppose. The coercion of the Unionist Government was coercion against crime and criminals; but here, they had coercion against law-abiding and peaceful citizens. It was coercion against men who had broken no law; it was coercion for the purpose of plunder, to take one man's property and pass it on to another, and to turn out existing tenants and put in their place men who had broken their con tracts. The Prime Minister had said that the principle of the Bill was admitted on all sides. He challenged him to refer to any Member on that side who had ever said he was in favour of compulsion. Ho believed he was himself the only one who had referred to that question, and what he had said was that if the Government could not accomplish the restoration of these evicted tenants in a reasonable-time without compulsion, and if they brought in a Bill for that purpose, giving the fullest and amplest protection to the owners and sitting tenants, even at the sacrifice of a principle which ho valued, he should, if necessity were shown, be prepared to give the matter-favourable consideration. But from beginning to end there had been no suggestion by any Member who took part in the debate on his side of the House that they would tolerate for one instant the principle of compulsion. The Chief Secretary said they had already discussed the two main principles of the Bill. He urged, however, that apart from principles, they refused time to discuss such important points as the-constitution of the tribunal, the finance of the Bill, and the tenure of the Estates Commissioners. It seemed to him that apart from these great principles they must discuss the terms on which they were to be carried out: they had been left no time in which to discuss the rest of the provisions of the Bill under which this power of compulsion was to be exercised. What was to be the compensation for the land, or how was the cost to be provided for? These were all
  1220
  matters of great importance, once the principle was admitted. For instance, there was the expropriation of the new tenants. Were they or were they not to act upon the pledge given in another place that bona fide farmers were not to be disturbed? Was not that a matter worthy of discussion? If the Amendments with regard to compulsion and expropriation were to be discussed at any decent or reasonable length it would be impossible to have any time left for the discussion of the other three great principles involved—the constitution of the tribunal, the finance, and the-tenure of the Estates Commissioners. He had been rather astonished to hear the Prime Minister say that the second great object of the Bill was to get rid of the sitting tenant if he happened to have a holding from which a former tenant had been evicted. Were they then to understand that every sitting tenant in the occupation of a holding from which a former tenant had been evicted, was to be turned out?
  *MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Gentleman was going aside to discuss the Bill, and was not discussing the Motion before the House.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he had desired to point out that the statement of the Chief Secretary that bona fide farmers would not be disturbed was in conflict with the statement of the Prime Minister. Alarm had also been created by the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland that it was desirable to get rid of these sitting tenants because they were centres of disturbance. That involved a question of the grossest injustice and hardship to individuals, and he and those around him considered that, the time at their disposal was not sufficient to enable them to obtain justice for these tenants unless they got an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he intended to insert somewhere in his Bill a provision which would carry out what he had declared was his object, namely, to protect all the sitting tenants who could show that they were bona fide farmers, carrying on the cultivation of their farms. Even now if they could receive some-assurance as to the course it was in tended to take as regarded the tribunal set up under the Bill, the limitations in reference to the new tenants, and the

  1221
  principle upon which compensation to the owner was to be provided for they might be able, within reasonable limits, to con fine the discussion to the period suggested. So long as they were left in the dark as to the intention of the Government with regard to the Bill, it was impossible for them to forego, so long as they could exercise it, their right of discussing in the fullest way every single Amendment of which they had given notice. For his own part, he had put down no Amendment on the Paper for
  dilatory purposes. The only one he had put down was one which he thought would remove some of the injustice which the Bill would otherwise perpetrate. So long as the rules of the House and the Motion permitted, he and his friends would insist upon their right to discuss all the Amendments in the fullest and most ample manner.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 293;. Noes, 85. (Division List No. 296.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Harworth, Arthur A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hazeton, Richard

  Agnew, George William

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cox. Harold

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Henry, Charles S.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crosfield A. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cullinan, J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hogan, Michael

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barker, John

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Beale. W. P.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Duffy, William J.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bell, Richard

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bertram, Julius

  Dunne. Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Joyce, Michael

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kelley, George D.

  Birrell Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Boland, John

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  King. Alfred John (Knutsford);

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fiennes. Hon. Eustace

  Lambert, George

  Branch, James

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lea. Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fullerton. Hugh

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringtn)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bums, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gilhooly, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Byles. William Pollard

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lloy-George, Rt. Hon. David:

  Cameron, Robert

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lough, Thomas

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lundon, W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lupton, Arnold

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Grant, Corrie

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Haipin, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Claney, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Clough, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Kean, John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harwood, George

  M'Killop, W.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Massie, J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Thorne, William

  Meehan, Patrick A.

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

  Tillett, Louis John

  Menzies, Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ure, Alexander

  Montagu, E. S.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Verney, F. W.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Vivian, Henry

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Richards. T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Morrell, Philip

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Morse, L. L.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Murnaghan, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Murphy, John

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Murray. James

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Myer, Horatio

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nicholls, George

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Seddon, J.

  Wiles Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williamson, A.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  O'Grady, J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Young, Samuel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Pearce, William(Limehouse)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Pease.

  NOES

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Liddell, Henry

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Du Cros, Harvey

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)

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

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fletcher. J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Forster Henry William

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashford)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Packer, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Cave, George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Percy, Earl

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  1224

  1225

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Younger, George

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W).

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D (Strand)

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

  Tellers for the Noes—Sir

  Starkey, John R.

  Wiloughby de Eresby, Lord

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Question put, and agreed to.

  TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was sorry that the Postmaster-General was not in his place. He moved the rejection of this Bill as a protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted it through Committee and on Report. On the Motion for the Second Reading he moved an Amendment asking that accounts should be produced "showing the financial results of the past working of the Post Office telegraphs and telephones judged from the standpoint of an ordinary commercial undertaking." The Post master-General in reply was most conciliatory, and promised to consider dining the recess how the accounts could be presented in a more lucid way. The House had a right to ask that this promise should be redeemed in the spirit as well as in the letter, but the Postmaster-General, by refusing to accept Amendments in Committee and on Report, had placed himself outside the control of the House. If he chose he might simply produce another official statement. The present official statement; was absolutely useless. If they deducted from the total sum the amount attributed to telephones they would find an enormous increase in telegraph expenditure, although during the past five years there had been an actual reduction in the number sent. The number of telegrams had fallen from 90,500,000 to 89,500,000, and the cost had gone up to £42 per 1,000 as compared with £36 six years ago. The Postmaster-General was in this dilemma, either the telegraphs had been badly managed or the telegrams accounts had been overloaded to show a profit on the telephones accounts. That proved to him that what was wanted was something more than an official statement. What was wanted was an
  1226
  overhauling of the Post Office accounts by a competent business" man. But there was no guarantee at present that there would be anything of the kind. The Postmaster-General in the Second Reading debate said in the most conciliatory and courteous manner that he welcomed the discussion that was raised, and said it would strengthen his hands in dealing with the claims made upon him by outsiders; but suddenly he changed his attitude, and the only explanation he knew was that the right hon. Gentleman found that the Bill, instead of going before Committee of the Whole House, was to go to a Standing Committee, where it was disposed of in five minutes. Therefore he contended that he was justified in opposing the Third Reading, because there was no guarantee that they would get the proper statement of counts which had been promised. He was surprised that a Money Bill of such a character, next to the Finance Bill the most important Money Bill of the session, should be sent to a Standing Committee. It seemed to him that that was against the intention with which the Committee procedure was instituted. There were a good many Bills about which they made a fuss on both sides of the House, and which in a few years would be entirely forgotten, whereas this was a Bill to extract £6,000,000 from the pockets of the taxpayers. No doubt, certain con cessions were made in the drafting of the Bill, but they were to' the advantage of the Government. No better illustration of the evils of legislation by reference could be furnished than the disclosure, when the Postmaster-General came to put the clause on paper, of the fact that the reference would have re-enacted something to which the Treasury Had strong objection. It further showed the carelessness of the officials in drafting the Bill. They were not business men, and this business Department was so mismanaged that it was a big business failure. It would be invidious to mention

  1227
  present officials, but there had been many distinguished men connected with the Department who were yet quite un qualified by previous training for the duties that fell to them. To mention two names, there was Sir Spencer Walpole, a distinguished man who had written a valuable history of England, and who had served as the Governor of the Isle of Man, and again there was Mr. Buxton Forman, who had edited a life of Shelley; these were men of great capacity, but they were not business men. The appointment of the latter to the Post Office was jocularly defended on the ground that he was "a man of letters." But Post Office officials had to deal with shrewd business men in the matter of contracts, and the purchase of materials and of patent rights. They had the disposal of £19,000,000 a year of public money. Yet they could not even draft a Bill; they could not do a sum in simple interest; and they could not give the same figures for the same item on different pages. He did not think it was at all surprising that money was lost in connection with the Post Office at an ever-increasing rate. The accounts and the whole conduct of the business showed that the officials were not qualified for the work. This was shown in the 3d. a mile express messages system. Upon this the Department lost money, while at the same time competing against its own 6d. telegrams. So also with the telephone charges on short distance trunk lines; though the cost was greater the charge was lower. The charge was 3d. for twenty-five miles and 6d. for fifty miles for a three-minute service, whereas a telegram which occupied the wires for less than half a minute cost sixpence. In this way the Postmaster-General was actually using the nation's capital invested in telephones to destroy the nation's capital invested in telegraphs. If these matters were left to private enterprise, one set of capitalists would ruin the other, and that was the desire, he under stood, of the Labour party, while the whole nation would profit. But in this case, owing to the false policy of compelling the State to undertake this business, it was the taxpayers who paid, and taxes were laid on the neces-
  1228
  saries of life to make up loss on telegraph and telephone services. It was en interesting illustration of what was meant by Stat Socialism to find the Labour Party walking into the Government lobby like a flock of sheep in support of a Bill calculated to subsidise the rich at the expense of the poor. He moved the rejection of the Bill.
  MR. WATTsaid he desired to second the Motion so ably proposed by his hon. friend. He ventured to think that the Postmaster-General had adopted a wrong system. The right hon. Gentleman had the misfortune at the present moment to-j be the manager of a losing Department of the Government. There was a loss of £1,000,000 per annum on the telegraph system, and in the face of that important fact the Postmaster-General came to the House and asked the large sum of £6,000,000. When it was suggested in Committee that instead of getting the whole of that amount at one fell swoop, he should come to the House after £1,500,000 had been expended and ask for a further donation towards his-scheme, he rejected the suggestion with scorn. A Government pledged to economy, and also to the retention of control by the House of Commons over the expenditure of the country, ought to have accepted the Amendment to give effect to that suggestion. No-business man would adopt the system proposed by this Bill, and give to the manager of a losing concern carte blanche to do as he liked with £6,000,000, and to account to no one until four or five years had passed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words ' upon this, day three months.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: regretted to hear that the Postmaster-General was pre vented by illness from attending, and that he would probably not be able to be in his place for a fortnight. In the circumstances the debate would be taken under two inconveniences—one, that it

  1229
  would encroach on the time devoted to the Evicted Tenants Bill, and the other that the Postmaster-General could not be present to meet face to face the ingenious Gentleman who had at tacked his measure from below the gangway. The Government were very anxious to get on with the Bill, not only in connection with their scheme of business, but on account of some need of money; but he should think that they must feel that they ought to postpone the discussion of this measure on both the grounds he had stated, and that they ought to be discussing other Bills. In these circum stances, he suggested to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the temporary absence of the Leader of the House, whether it would not be desirable to postpone the debate for a fortnight, in the hope that the Postmaster-General would then be restored, as they all desired to see him restored, to his accustomed health. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  THE CHANCELLOR Of THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said he had no departmental responsibility for this Bill and was not in a position to enter into its details. The Bill had been put down in the belief that it would be treated as a non-contentious measure and that there was something like a general agreement upon it. In fact it was put down as the first Order so that that day might not be counted as an allotted day for the Evicted Tenants Bill. Only the Patronage Secretary knew of the unfortunate illness of the Postmaster-General at the opening of the sitting. If the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion—he was not speaking in any hostile sense—if the right hon. Gentleman thought that there was such a body of real, genuine criticism prepared to be made on this Bill, he must aquiesce; but the Bill could not be postponed for a fortnight, before which the Postmaster-General could not be present. In the course of a few days there would be some Minister
  1230
  capable of dealing with any question which might arise.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had made no inquiry among his own friends as to whether there was any desire to discuss the Bill at length, but from speeches to which he had listened he thought there was some reason for the postponement of the debate.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 3:—
  SIR F. BANBURYmoved, on behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim to insert-words to secure that before the compulsory acquisition of and for the purpose of the Act, the owner should have been offered the fair market value of his land, and should have refused to sell it to the Estates Commissioners. To him it seemed to be an extremely reasonable Amendment. The very first thing that the Estates Commissioners should do was to offer the fair market value to the owner of the land. He could not see that anyone would. be hurt by such a proceeding, and he could not understand that the land should be taken compulsorily except at its fair market value. He would be glad to hear on what grounds that would be objected to by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the gangway.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the word 'purposes, to insert the words' if, after having offered to the owner of such lands the fair market value thereof, he has refused to sell to the Commissioners and the Commissioners shall use such lands.'" (Sir F. Banbury)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he quite agreed that the price to be offered to the owner

  1231
  of the land was its fair market value, and he was willing on Report stage to introduce words to make that clear. But he did not wish it to be for a moment in doubt that the question as to what was a fair market value was a question to be settled by the Estates Commissioners themselves. He would have no objection to some such words as, "After having offered to the persons appearing to be the owners of the land, such price as appeared to them to represent the fair market value of the land." They knew that many owners of the land had made no reply to offers made to them by the Estates Commissioners. He did not say that the Estates Commissioners were to be arbiters of what was the fair market value of the land, but they should be obliged to put something to the owners of the land as to what they thought was a fair market value.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would be very glad to accept the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. He might be allowed to call the attention of the hon. Member for Waterford to the fact that an English Member had had to intervene to get an Amendment accepted, which the right hon. Gentleman said was fair and reasonable.
  MR. BIRRELL: So fair and reasonable as to be already in the Bill by implication.
  Sir E. CARSONasked if the proposed Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman to be inserted at the Report stage would also apply to the case of a tenant before he was compulsorily expropriated.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that they would come to that later on in the Bill.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would meet the difficulty by accepting the Amendment he had on the Paper, because it dealt with the case of both tenanted land and untenanted land.
  MR. BIRRELLpromised also to consider between then and the Report stage-whether the tenant who would be expropriated should also come within the scope of the Amendment.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (apologised to the House for being too late-to move his Amendment. Its object was simply to prevent the Estates Com missioners coming to a man and saying over his head, "We want so much of your land and we are going to take it." It only provided that there should be the ordinary time given for making amicable arrangements with the owner of the land in the first instance, and while he did not think the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were of much value,, because under them they were to rely upon the Estates Commissioners to say what was the fair market value of the land, he would withdraw his Amendment, which was designed in order to try and find out whether the right hon. Gentle man did intend at some stage of the Bill to give them an appeal.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was out of order in discussing that question now.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGacquiesced, and repeated that, although he did not think there was very much value in the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, as he wished to offer no unnecessary opposition to the Bill, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the next Amendment was a drafting one which the right hon. Gentleman had accepted. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8. to leave out the word 'may * and insert the word' shall.'"—(Air. James Campbell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. MOORE,)rose to move a proviso as follows: "Provided always that the total amount of land to be acquired under this Act shall not exceed 80,000 acres, and a separate record of all land so acquired shall be kept by the Commissioners and shall be available for inspection by any person or persons claiming to be aggrieved; (2) no land

  1233
  shall be acquired under this Act unless and until the owners shall have refused to accept a reasonable offer for its purchase by the Estates Commissioners, and the Estates Commissioners shall not beat liberty to refuse to declare tenanted lands an estate by reason of the fact that the owner has not agreed to sell an untenanted portion of his lands to the Commissioners." He said that the first part of the Amendment was based upon the Report of the Estates Commissioners, who set out that the amount of land required would be 80,000 acres, and while they on, that side had expressed themselves as willing and as desiring that all deserving and respectable tenants in Ireland should be reinstated, they thought that some limit should be put upon the number of tenants and the amount of land to be taken for that purpose. They pressed that view particularly because of the fact that lion. Members below the gangway some few years ago were of opinion that if about 300 or 400 evicted tenants were reinstated, the whole question would be settled for ever. They found, however, from the Estates Commissioners' Report that 1,000 tenants had been already reinstated and 2,000 more were to be provided for under this Bill. They had also been told that the amount of land to be dealt with was to average forty acres per holding, and they therefore thought that some specific limit should be placed on the amount of land to be taken under this Bill. The second part of the Amendment practically embodied the idea contained in his own first Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the lion. Member had better move the first Amendment only at this stage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked if he would be in order in moving the first part of the Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he, thought it would be better for the hon. Member to move the first Amendment. When they came to the second Amendment lie; would rule upon it.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGmoved the first part of the Amendment dealing with the total amount of land and the record.
  Amendment proposed:—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'estate,' to insert the words, 'Provided always that the total amount of land to be acquired under this Act shall not exceed 80,000 acres, and a separate record of all land so acquired shall be kept by the Commissioners and shall be available for inspection by any person or persons claiming to be aggrieved.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BIRRELLdid not think that any useful purpose would be served by accepting the Amendment. They had had careful inquiries made as to the probable amount of land required, and they had the assurance of responsible persons that 80,000 acres was the limit. The Commissioners had worked out that figure on their own responsibility. As to the suggestion that forty acres should be allotted to each tenant, he did not want any hard and fast rule in regard to that to be laid down. Sometimes forty acres might be sufficient but some times more than forty acres would be necessary. The Commissioners must look into the nature of the holding, neighbourhood, and the like. Therefore he did not think it desirable, and the Government could not consent, to insert a statutory limit of this kind. He thought the Committee should consider that 80,000 acres was the outside limit, but the Government were not prepared to insert it in the Bill as a statutory provision. The proposed record was not necessary, as obviously the land required, would be known.
  MR. WALTER LONGwas sorry that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to make some suggestion in regard to this Amendment. He could quite understand his unwillingness to accept it, but it only set out tin estimate of the Estates Com missioners themselves. He understood that they said that 80,000 acres would be the outside amount, and for that reason it would be seen that this was not an unreasonable proposal to make. They had been told that the Bill had ore object, the restoration of the evicted tenants. That being so, it was possible to arrive at a perfectly safe estimate which would give the Commissioners ample scope and at the same time make it clear that their power was not to be

  1235
  exercised under pressure that might after wards arise in order to carry the operation further than Parliament intended. There had been a remarkable growth of evicted tenants between the time when the right hon. Member for Dover had to deal with the question and the time when he himself had to deal with it. In the first instance the number was put at some hundreds, and the hon. Member for Ea t Mayo spoke of the number as 800. Now they had 8,000 applications, which had been gradually cut down to 2,000 after the examination of the Estates Commissioners. But anybody who had watched this movement knew that the number was increasing and the passing, of this Bill was much more likely to add to the claims of those who said they were evicted tenants than to decrease them. There was a possibility of the 2,000 being doubled and trebled. He did not think that that was a result which ought to follow from the passing of this Bill. It might be reasonable to put the number of acres at 100,000 or not to define any acreage at all, but to deal with this matter at a subsequent stage of the Bill, and limit the number of evicted tenants to be reinstated. He submitted that some limitation was necessary either in the amount of land to be taken or in the number of tenants to be reinstated. For himself he would rather see a limitation of the number of tenants than a limitation of the acres to be devoted to the purpose, because, as the Chief Secretary had truly said, forty acres might he too little in one case and too much in another. Therefore it might be desirable to keep the number of acres as vague as possible, but he thought they ought to have some statement as to the number of evicted tenants. At all events they ought to have some statement of policy from the Government, because as the Bill now stood it could be used for the reinstatement of any number of people who might come "within the description of evicted tenants. For these reasons he thought they ought to press the Amendment, which did not set up any limitation which the Government had not imposed upon themselves.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsupported the Amendment, and
  1236
  said he felt very strongly that there should be some limitation either in the acreage or in the number of tenants. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to give them some idea as to the holdings which would be allotted to the evicted tenants. He thought it would be found that 80,000 acres of land would be found far more than was required to settle the tenants upon the land.
  MR. BARRIEalso expressed regret that the Chief Secretary had not seen his way to some limitation in one way or the other. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that this was the outside figure, hon. Members below the gangway had given no assurance that the Government had reached the full limit of their demands. Even if this concession were granted he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman would have further demands made upon him after the Bill had passed. It was in that spirit this Amendment was moved. He thought it reasonable, and that the Chief Secretary would be well advised to consider now whether some limitation could not be made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was on untenanted land alone that anybody in Ireland could draw for extending un economic holdings, which had been recognised as the agricultural curse of that country. Suggestions had reached him that the amount of such land was limited. He believed this draft of 80,000 acres from the untenanted land would leave, he would not say a deficit, but very little margin for the real reform of the agrarian system. If the Chief Secretary had any estimate of the untenanted land available, he thought he ought to lay it before the Committee. Quality was also an important consideration. The amount of land of a kind on which tenants could be planted was the measure of the power of the Government to deal with the root agrarian difficulty in Ireland. If they were going to sacrifice the future of the tenants whose holdings needed enlarging to people who had not for many years been cultivators of the soil, he thought the Bill, instead of doing something substantial to settle the Irish land difficulty, would only increase it. The one thing

  1237
  the Government could not do was to increase the area of Ireland
  MR. BIRRELLrecognised the importance of the question which the right hon. Gentleman had raised, and said he had referred to it more than once as one of the reasons why it had been found necessary to take compulsory powers under this Bill. He would endeavour to get the best estimate he could of the number of acres available, but they varied considerably in the various counties. In Roscommon and Gal way there was not much difficulty, but in Mayo there was a, great shortage of land of that description. It was true that they could not increase the size of Ireland, but lie would remind the House that there was a Bill for improving waste land, and it was possible that something might be done with that proposal if money were forthcoming. There was a good deal of waste laud in Ireland that might be reclaimed and made available for sustaining the population. He agreed with the right hon. Member for North Dublin that the important point was the number of tenants, because that was the factor that really determined the acreage required. The Bill did limit the number of persons. It defined evicted tenants as persons mentioned in the Act of 1903 who were evicted from their holdings before the passing of that Act, and who made application to the Estates Commissioners "before the date named. It was not reasonable to assert that such a class was going to be enormously extended. He did not see why it should be extended at all; but he did not wish absolutely to close the door on a reconsideration of some of the cases that had been investigated on the spot by the inspectors and passed under review by the Estates Com missioners. He did not wish absolutely to say what was the number of tenants which constituted the determining factor. The time might come when they would know definitely who those people were, but he would not like to pledge himself at that moment to print a list of the persons who alone certainly and finally were to be treated as evicted tenants within the meaning of this clause. They had got very near to them, and would eventually get them actually; but at present all he could do was to ask the
  1238
  Committee to take 2,000 as the number not likely to be widely departed from. These claims could not be added to by more than a few. He thought the Committee would run no risk in leaving the matter as it stood in the Bill.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that in 1903 it was stated by hon. Members below the gangway that the number of evicted tenants was 800.
  MR. BIRRELL: Without inquiry.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he doubted that very much. He thought the hon. Members below the gangway knew very well that they were talking about. An inquiry was held some years ago by a quasi-judicial tribunal which alto fixed the number at a similar figure. Since 1903 they had increased from 800 to 8,000—a very fair rate of progress considering the population of Ireland. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that he only required land for 2,000, he found nothing in the Bill which limited the number. Not only was there no limitation in the Bill as regards the number, but there was none as regards cost. Supposing 2,000 tenants were absorbed, they could not put the amount of public credit to be pledged at less than £2,000,000; if there" were 8,000, it would mean £8,000,000. There was not even a limit as to the amount of land an evicted tenant was to get. Did the Government suppose that a tenant turned out of 200 acres would be satisfied with 40 acres, or was one turned out of 10 acres to get 40? Was the man turned out of say 250 acres to be put on the same footing as the man who had been turned out of 10 acres? Not only was public credit to be pledged to this work, but there was to be no limit to the amount of land to be given to any individual tenant, nor was it shown that the quantity of land to be given was to bear any relation to what the tenant had held in the past. Surely a cruder or a wider measure was never put forward. The Estates Commissioners, who, he had no doubt, were the most admirable men in the world, were to have unlimited power to apply public credit for acquiring land for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. They might have put

  1239
  this Bill into two lines— "The Estates Commissioners shall have power to give as much land as they please at as much cost as they please, which the Treasury are quite willing to bear, to any evicted tenant in Ireland." That was really the whole of the Bill. There ought to be some indication of how the land was to be distributed by the Commissioners in fixing the amount of the land required.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)pointed out that in the Act of 1903, for which the hon. and learned Gentleman was partly responsible, there was no limit. ["Compulsion."] Yes, "compulsion" was their constant cry in reply to every argument.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he would not have interrupted with the word "compulsion" save for the reason that where they had no compulsion they necessarily had no reason for a limit.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the word "compulsion" came up in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite like King Charles's head; it cropped up in every argument. Compulsion was discussed on Wednesday last ad nauseam:there was then no restriction on anything that was then said, and there was no closure; they had exhausted themselves on the subject, and it was now time that they went to other important matters in the Bill. He had a word to say about the Amendment, but he need only to mention the Act of 1903 and they would immediately cry "Compulsion, compulsion." He admitted at once that there was no compulsion in the Act of 1903, but that measure gave an absolutely unlimited power to the Estates Commissioners to reinstate any evicted tenant in any amount of land at any time. ["No, no. "An Hon. MEMBER:" And at any cost''"] Yes, there was no limit as to cost. He could have under stood the right hon. and learned Gentle man saying," You are allowing these three dreadful men, the Estates Com missioners, to spend £100,000,000 on an infinity of land in order to reinstate an unlimited number of tenants." One hundred millions might have been advanced under that Act; there was no
  1240
  limit; they had the power under the Act to buy and resell land for the re- instatement of the evicted tenants. On the other hand, by this Bill, in the first clause of it, as his right hon. friend had pointed out, the number of people was confined to those who were evicted before a certain date and who had made out a case to the Estates Commissioners. So far as compulsory powers were concerned they were distinctly limited in that way. "In the Act of 1903 there was no such limitation. He believed that there was a great deal more risk under the voluntary arrangement of the Act of 1903 than under a compulsory arrangement, because the former was unlimited, while the latter was under some limitation. Under the voluntary system the landlord and tenant arranged between them, and the Com missioners had no voice in the matter, though they were supposed to be the custodians of the public money. Under this Bill, when they came to the restoration of the evicted tenants they had a body of three gentlemen who were appointed by the Government to discharge official duties, and it was their business to see that they paid a proper and reasonable price for the land, and that they resold it to the evicted tenant at a reasonable and proper price. But what hon. Gentlemen opposite really objected to was the blessed word "compulsion," a principle which the Government thought was necessary for the proper working of the measure.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he could not accept the description given by the right hon. and learned Member of the Act of 1903. He had described its sections in a way to suggest that the Commissioners could have spent £100,000,000 if they chose on the reinstatement of evicted tenants. That really was a travesty of the provisions of the Act. The evicted tenants were included among other classes, and they were given no priority and no preference, and, besides that, there was the limitation that the cost of any holding was not to exceed the capital value of £1,000. Where greater latitude was given to meet the case of a tenant who had had a larger holding than would be covered by the sum of £1,000, perhaps a farm of several

  1241
  hundreds of acres, it was expressly Provided by the second section—
  "That such larger advance for sanction to any purchaser shall be without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons residing in the neighbourhood."
  So there they saw that the evicted tenants were only one class among many classes; they had no priority or preference, and the limit of £1,000 for a holding could not be exceeded save where it could be shown that it would be without damage or injury to persons living in the neighbourhood.
  *MR. ASHLEYthought that the Chief Secretary had taken rather a rash view of the amount of untenanted land that would be avail able for the reinstatement of evicted tenants, and also for the purpose of increasing the size of uneconomic holdings in the west of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the debate on 29th October last year he would see that the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Bryce, made the very startling statement that in Ulster, Minister, and even in Connaught there was not more than one-third of the land which could be used for in creasing the size of the uneconomic holdings. If that was the condition of things in Connaught surely it meant that they were going to take away the land which should have gone to increase the size of the uneconomic holdings, and give it to the evicted tenants, thus depriving those in the district of the land which should have gone to increase their holdings to economic size. As regarded the number of acres to be taken under this Bill he agreed that 80,000 acres was rather a small limit to impose. The number of applicants had been 8,400, and 6,100 had been inquired into, leaving 2,300 still to be adjudicated upon. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at page 6 of the Report he would see that the Commissioners had 1,600 cases to be provided for, because they had already been adjudicated upon, and besides that number they had 2,300 cases still to adjudicate upon. Of course he knew that the Report stated that it was thought that not more than 400 of these cases would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, pass the test; still, there might be some 3,500 or 3,600 evicted tenants
  1242
  to be [provided for which would take 150,000 acres. He thought that such an Amendment as that under discussion ought to be included.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the question they were discussing was a very important one if they desired to secure the successful administration of the Bill. The Chief Secretary had asked was it likely that he would ever yield to pressure to include in the category of tenants persons who did not properly come under that category. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if the Bill became law in its present shape he would be quite helpless in the matter, because that power was being handed over to the Estates Com missioners. It was no answer to say that they should trust to the discretion of the Chief Secretary or his successor in office. The right hon. Gentleman had anticipated somewhat the discussion upon the Amendment standing in his (Mr. Campbell's) name, which dealt with the number of the evicted tenants, and at first he thought he was going to pronounce in favour of the limitation fixed in that Amendment. The Chief Secretary started with that contention, but he pulled himself up and gradually receded from the impression which he at first left upon those sitting in opposition. Surely some limitation was necessary. It had been stated on behalf of the Government that they objected to this Amendment because they did not wish to close the door against some of those tenants whose claims had already been rejected. The moment that statement became known in Ireland every one of those 8,500 evicted tenants would have their hopes revived. The right hon. Gentleman said the Estates Commissioners had informed him that there were some cases in reference to which they were desirous of hearing something more, Apparently there was to be no finality on this matter because, as regarded those 8,500 cases, it was understood that the Commissioners had once and for all ruled them all out except 2,000. Apparently they had been under a delusion in this matter; the door was to be left open.
  MR. BIRRELL: What I said was that there were a few cases in regard to which

  1243
  the Estates Commissioners desired the door to be left open, but they were very few indeed.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLasked if the names were going to be scheduled. If not all those rejected tenants would quite properly bring pressure to bear upon the Estates Commissioners in the hope that their case might be reconsidered. This point ought to be clearly stated in the Bill, so that those tenants would know that the time had gone by for any further or fresh agitation. He could not imagine anything more calculated to destroy any approach to finality in this matter than the two statements made by the Chief Secretary: (1) That he and the Estates Commissioners did not want to close the door against the men already rejected,; and (2) That there were a certain number of those rejected men whom the Estates Commissioners had expressed a desire to hear more about. The fact that since 1903 the estimate as to the number of evicted tenants had gone up from 800 to 8,000 had not yet been explained. The Estates Commissioners said they had sifted those 8,500 cases down to 2,000, and the Chief Secretary said the Bill provided homes for2,000 scheduled and named evicted tenants. If that was the case what objection could there be to stating in the Bill that the number of persons to be reinstated should not exceed 2,000? If the Bill was left in its present form the Estates Commissioners could deal with 8,500 tenants. Clause 2 laid it down that the Estates Commissioners might, decide who were fit and proper persons to be recognised as evicted tenants. Consequently they might throw everything to the wind that had been done already and start upon a fresh investigation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that in this respect his criticism was perfectly right and fair. The object of the clause was said to be to limit the discretion of the Commissioners, but it did not do so; it provided that they were to
  restore those tenants who, after the Bill became law, they might consider to be fit and proper persons, and they could give the go-by to what they had done already. They all knew the amount of pressure which could be brought to bear upon these matters in Ireland by clergy men, politicians, and local authorities, not merely to increase the number of tenants to be let in but also to put B in the place of A. He did not think the Estates Commissioners would be able to resist that pressure, and they ought to welcome the protection offered by this Amendment in order that they might say to the local authorities: "We are very sorry, but the time has gone by and we cannot do this now." Surely it would be sufficient if the Chief Secretary accepted an Amendment which would give him a little elasticity to cover the few isolated cases he had alluded to. In fairness to the Estates Commissioners and the evicted tenants some limit should be accepted. If a limit was not accepted he could assure the Committee that, as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman had said about his anxiety to keep the door open, and that the Estates Commissioners should consider a certain number of the rejected cases, the gates would be opened to a flood of pressure from every part of Ireland upon the Commissioners. The only way that could be prevented was by putting in a limitation either of age or number. If the right hon. Gentleman thought 2,000 too rigid a number, he would be willing to agree to such a reasonable limit as would enable the Estates Commissioners to provide for the few cases they were anxious to reconsider. Unless a limit was stated there would be a fresh agitation the moment the Bill passed more violent than any that had been brought about by previous measures.
  Question put.
  Tae Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 265. (Division List No. 297.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Barrie H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cave, George

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  Charles Craig and Mr.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Ashley.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Agnew, George William

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Alden, Percy

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ambrose, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Astbury, John Meir

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kelley, George D.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kenned, Vincent Paul

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Eli bank, Master of

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barker, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bell, Richard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lamont, Norman

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

  Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Boland. John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lough, Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gilhooly, James

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Branch, James

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brodie, H. C.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gurdon. Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

  MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal. E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Halpin, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Byles. William Pollard

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Kean, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Killop, W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cleland. J. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Clough, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Clynes. J. R,

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cobbold, Felix, Thornley

  Henry, Charles S.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry;

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Massie, J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Hodge, John

  Meagher, Michaell

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogan, Michael

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Menzies, Walter

  Cox, Harold

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Crean, Eugene

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Crooks, William

  Hyde. Clarendon

  Money, L. G. Chiozz.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jacoby. Sir James Alfred

  Montagu, E. S.

  1246

  1247

  Mooney, J. J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Summerbell, T.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rees, J. D.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln')

  Ure, Alexander

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Verney, F, W.

  Murray, James

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Vivian, Henry

  Myer, Horatio

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Napier, T. B.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walters, John Tudor

  Nicholls, George

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Rowlands, J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Runciman, Walter

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

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

  Sears, J. E.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Grady, J.

  Seddon, J.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton, David James

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Shee, James John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Parker, James (Halifax,)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Partington, Oswald

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Snowden, P.

  Winfrey, R.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Young, Samuel

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Pease.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  MR. CHARLES CRAIGmoved an Amendment to provide that the Estates Commissioners should not be at liberty to refuse to declare tenanted lands an estate by reason of the fact that the owner had not agreed to sell an untenanted portion of his lands to the Commissioners. He said the object of the Amendment was to prevent the Estates Commissioners from being able to punish a landlord for not agreeing to sell an untenanted portion of his lands. There was quite enough of compulsion in the Bill already, and he thought the landlord should be safe guarded in the way he proposed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 9, at end to insert the words: 'The Estates Commissioners shall not be at liberty to refuse to declare tenanted lands an estate by reason of the fact that the owner has not agreed to sell an untenanted portion of his lands to the Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Charles Craig.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. ASHLEYsupported the Amendment. He said that the Estate Commissioners had treated the owner of an estate whom he knew in such a way that the Amendment of his hon. friend was necessary. This man had made an agreement to sell his land at a certain price. The tenants were satisfied, the owner was satisfied, and everything was arranged. But the owner had a certain detached farm up in the mountains which the Estate Commissioners wished to purchase at a certain price for the purpose of extending uneconomic holdings. They and the land lord could not agree on the price. All that the latter asked for was that he should not be out of pocket in regard to the purchase money when that money was invested in trust securities as provided for in his settlements. The Estates Commissioners refused to give him that sufficient price, and said they would only give the owner one-third of what he had hitherto derived from the land, and that, unless he accepted that price, they would not put their seal to the sale of the remainder of the estate to his tenants.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he did not know whether the attention of hon. Members had been drawn to the fact that the Government had already accepted an Amendment which rendered the Amendment now proposed entirely unnecessary. The word "shall" had been inserted instead of the word "may," so that in any case where the Estates Commissioners purchased any given area, that would be regarded as a separate estate, so as to enable the owner to get the bonus. The 10 per cent. bonus was to be paid originally in cases of voluntary sales, but the introduction of the word "shall" provided that in every case the bonus should be paid.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that the object of the Amendment was to meet the case where a landlord had an ordinary estate of 1,000 acres which he wished to sell to the tenants, while desiring to retain in his own hands a certain amount of untenanted land. The Estates Commissioners, however, said that unless he sold the untenanted land they would not declare his property an estate. He knew of a case in the county of Meath. The landlord agreed to sell to the tenants on certain conditions, and the inspector of the Estates Commissioners appeared on the farm, and having inspected it stated to the bailiff and. to the landlord who were present that there was plenty of security for the money to be advanced but that in any case the owner would have to sell to the Estates Commissioners at least 100 acres for evicted tenants. Now, the tenant and his predecessor had been in possession for 100 years, and not a single tenant had ever been evicted on the estate. There they had a case in point. An agreement for the sale of a large farm which both parties were willing to carry out, and the tenants did not even ask for the full rent from the Estates Commissioners. And yet the Estates Commissioners insisted that 100 acres out of an estate of 360 acres should be sold to them for the purpose of providing farms to evicted tenants in other parts of the country. That showed the necessity for some such Amendment, and he hoped that the Attorney-General would have something to say on the point, as the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand why the Amendment was moved.
  MR. CHERRYthought that the Amendment was still more objectionable as explained by the hon. Member, because he was endeavouring to amend the Act of 1903 in an essential particular. That was clearly out of order. The discretion of the Estates Commissioners in the matter as described in that Act could not be amended in this Bill, which dealt only with evicted tenants, and they could not possibly dream of interfering with the discretion of the Com missioners as regarded the sale of land generally throughout Ireland.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that this Bill would be an independent enactment of general application, and if the Amendment were passed, it would repeal one of the most fundamental provisions of the Act of 1903. He asked the Chairman whether the Amendment could be moved.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsubmitted that the Amendment did no more than the Bill itself. The Bill amended the Act of 1903 in almost every clause, so far as it dealt with evicted tenants. It seemed to him a new doctrine that an Amendment to one Bill should be out of order because it amended something in an Act already passed.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that after the explanation of the rig it hon. and learned Member the Attorney-General it was quite, obvious that the Amendment was out of order.
  MR. J. F. MASONmoved to insert at the end of the first subsection of Clause 1: "Provided that where any part of an estate is acquired compulsorily, it shall be lawful for the owner to require that the whole of the estate shall be so taken." He said that as the Bill now stood it was open to the Estates Commissioners to take a part of any estate on their own terms, and to plant down evicted tenants who were not necessarily connected with that particular estate bit might come from any other part of Ireland, on conditions of purchase which were favourable to them. Under those circumstances, what would the position be? They would have on this particular part of the estate evicted

  1251
  tenants planted down who were paying less in interest on the purchase money than their neighbours would be paying for rent, even when the rents were fixed as fair rents. Again, no provision was made for the labourers on the holdings from which the tenants were removed to find them holdings, or compensation for being disturbed. The claims of these labourers were worthy of some consideration. What position could be more unsatisfactory than the existence of these two bodies of small proprietors and tenants living side by side under conditions so entirely different; what could be more certain to create dissatisfaction and to bring about disorder in the district? That was a strong reason why his Amendment should be considered. The Chief Secretary had said that the existing tenants were to be displaced because they were bad farmers, but surely it was unfair that bad farmers should be planted on another estate. All he proposed was that if they took one portion of a man's estate for the purposes of this Bill they should take the rest of the estate on the landlord's request for the purpose of carrying out the Act of 1903.
  Amendment proposed—
  " In page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that, where part of an estate is to be acquired compulsorily, it shall be lawful for the' owner to require that the whole estate shall be so taken."—(Mr. Janus Mason.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGdesired to support the Amendment, which seemed to him to be eminently reasonable. If the Estates Commissioners came down to a landlord's estate and picked bits off here and there for the purpose of providing for evicted tenants, say to the extent of one-third of the estate, he thought it would be admitted that it was not an unreasonable provision that the landlord should have the right to compel the Estates Commissioners to take the whole of it. The effect of his hon. friend's Amendment might be limited if necessary. He admitted that if in the case of a large estate the Com missioners secured one very small piece or corner, the landlord should not be able to make the Commissioners buy
  1252
  the whole of say 10,000 acres. But the converse case was just as likely to happen. If, on a small estate of 200 acres, the Estates Commissioners required 30, 40, or 50 acres for the purposes of or this Act, surely it was a reasonable thing that a landlord who had lost the best part of his estate and had had outsiders thrust upon him should be able to compel the Commissioners to take the whole of his small estate off his hands.
  MR. CHERRYthought the hon. Member for Windsor did not really understand the effect of his Amendment, which would be objectionable. The primary object of the Bill was to provide land for evicted tenants, and the compulsory powers only applied to the acquisition of untenanted land or land which was in the occupation of new tenants. The Amendment sought to compel the Estates Commissioners to-purchase from an owner who had any untenanted land for sale his tenanted land as well. If it were accepted, it would oblige them to determine the tenancies of the tenanted land and turn out the tenants. The Government had been vigorously attacked for going as far as they had, but this Amendment would compel them to go much further than they had ever contemplated. They could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Attorney-General for Ireland had remarked that his hon. friend the Member for Windsor did not know what the meaning of his own Amendment was, but for his own part he did not think the right hon. Gentleman himself had gathered the purpose of it. He thought the language of the Amendment was perhaps un fortunate, especially with regard to the words "so taken" at the end of it, but it was easy to alter phraseology so as to prevent its going further than the promoter of the Amendment intended. His hon. friend's suggestion was that, where the Estates Commissioners descended upon the estate of a landlord who had not evicted his tenants, in order to provide holdings for the evicted tenants from another estate, if the owner desired that his property should be sold as a whole he should have a prior right to the general sale powers of the Act of

  1253
  1903. He looked at this matter, not from the point of view of the landlord alone or from that of the tenant alone, but also from the point of view of general policy. The object of the Government was to remove possible sources of disturbance. Did they really think that their policy of planting down on an estate, where the majority of tenants would be rent-paying tenants, a new body of men who would be sitting on better terms and more agreeable conditions, would have the pacifying effect they desired it should have? He quite agreed that they could not enforce a right to purchase where thirty or forty acres were taken out of a large estate, and that there ought to be some limitation. But in a great many cases it would not be a small bit of land, and the amount would probably be sufficient to make a mark on the estate itself. Unless some safeguard were inserted, he was convinced fresh difficulties would arise which would either need further legislation or cause delay in giving prompt and practical effect to the Act of 1903. He did not think the Attorney-General for Ireland should dismiss the Amendment and say in effect that it was ultra vires, and un worthy of consideration.
  MR. CHERRY: I said it was objectionable.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that no doubt the principle de minimis non curat lex might be applied to the Amendment, or it might be said to be impossible. Those were solid arguments, but where a man had land taken from him in order to deal with difficulties on estates other than his own, he thought he ought to receive more consideration. The arguments he had mentioned did not fall, however, from the right lion. Gentleman, and he regretted that he felt compelled to deal with the matter in such a summary manner. He regretted the absence from the House of the Chief Secretary, though he understood and appreciated the reason for it, for he regarded the question as one of serious importance.
  MR. CLANCYsaid the Amendment came from the English sympathisers with the Irish landlords, and was about the most
  1254
  amusing illustration that he had seen of the pure humbug that had gone on throughout this Bill. A short time before they were discussing the limitation of the provision in regard to the purchase of 80,000 acres.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member must confine himself in his remarks to the Amendment.
  MR. CLANCYsaid he only wished to point out the humbug of this Amendment, which would enlarge the scope of the Bill.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked if it was in order to describe as humbug an Amendment which the Chairman had allowed to be moved.
  MR. CLANCYsaid they had listened to a set of arguments destined to show that undue pressure would be put on the executive and unlimited discretion given to the Estates Commissioners, yet here was an Amendment which proposed to extend the powers. As an illustration let them take the estate of the Marquess of Clanricarde, which was 65,000 acres. It was suggested that if ten acres was purchased for the purpose of reinstating an evicted tenant Lord Clanricarde should be able to compel the Estates Commissioners to purchase 64,990 in addition. If that was to be allowed on all the estates in Ireland 2,000,000 acres might have to be bought up. He ventured to say, after hearing all the arguments which had been adduced against such a thing by the Party of which the hon. Member was a member, the present Amendment was humbug and nothing else.
  MR. CHERRYsaid the right hon. Member for South Dublin had placed an entirely different interpretation upon the Amendment from that which the language clearly conveyed. It provided that if the Estates Commissioners sought to acquire any land compulsorily the owners of that land should have power to compel them to take the whole of the estate. The right hon. Gentleman had put an entirely different construction upon it. His interpretation was that if the Estates Commissioners compulsorily acquired a portion of an estate they should allow the landlord

  1255
  voluntarily to sell the whole to the tenants. There was nothing to prevent a voluntary sale now, and it was not necessary to put such a proviso in the Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman had said he wanted the owner to get some priority for the sale of the rest of the land if some was taken compulsorily. But he (Mr. Cherry) thought that the hon. Gentleman meant what he said in his Amendment, namely, that if there was to be compulsory sale of one portion of an estate there should be compulsory sale of the whole. The Bill only dealt with provision of land for evicted tenants, and therefore the adoption of the Amendment would be very extraordinary. He appealed to the mover to withdraw it.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLhoped the Amendment would not be withdrawn. It simply gave to a landlord the power given at present in the case of a rail way company requiring land, namely, where a portion of the land was taken to insist upon their taking the whole, on the ground that what was left was of no value to him. In the case of the Marquess of Clanricarde's estate, there might be a thousand agricultural tenants—rent-paying tenants who had not bought under the Land Purchase Act of 1903. But the Estates Commissioners would no doubt pick out certain portions for evicted tenants, and it was possible there would be ten persons not tenants like the rest of the people, but paying about 4s. an acre, while the rent-paying tenants would be paying 8s. That would convert the estate into a sort of magpie, and probably these 8s. tenants would become centres of disturbance in the district, and Cause discontent among the rest of the tenants. What the Amendment pro posed to do was to say that in such cases as that the landlord should be entitled to say, "If you are going to take a part of my land you must take the whole of it." If those who were responsible for this Bill had any instinct of justice they would at once say that that was a just demand. Why should a landlord be asked to sell his estate in a piecemeal manner; why if one part of the land was taken, should not the landlord be able to say that the remainder was of no use to him and that they must take the whole or none? That was what the Amendment asked, and was it not justice?
  1256
  If the Chief Secretary had been in his place he thought that he would have understood this proposal. He must con fess that from his speech he did not think that the Attorney-General for Ireland did understand the Amendment.
  MR. CHERRYsaid he was not dealing with the Amendment on the Paper, but with the interpretation which had been given of it by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he thought it was a matter of ordinary good taste and good sense to deal with the Amendment on the Paper in the sense in which it was put forward by its mover.
  MR. CHERRYsaid it was as a matter of courtesy that he had dealt with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. He might have been out of order in doing so, probably was, but it was only as a matter of courtesy that he had dealt with the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the Amendment.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman had exhausted himself in the matter of explanations; he had been given four opportunities of explaining, and he had left the matter exactly where it was. He was glad to see that the Chief Secretary was now in his place, and he trusted that they would have the advantage of his intelligence, which he knew to be very great, on this question. What he was endeavouring to point out was that a landlord might have a rent-paying tenantry, but if for the purposes of this Bill land was acquired on his estate for reinstating evicted tenants, he would have dotted over his estate a number of persons who would necessarily become centres of disaffection and disorder amongst the rent-paying tenants, who might feel that their position was less advantageous than that of the reinstated tenants, and the condition of the property might be made very burden some and very troublesome. What he suggested was that they should apply the remedy that was applied under the Lands Clauses Acts in the case of compulsory purchase for a public purpose: if

  1257
  a portion of a man's property were taken and it interfered with his enjoyment and comfort in the use of the rest of it, then he had a right to serve notice calling upon the promoting company to take the balance of the land. The object of the Amendment before the House was to enable an owner to say to the Estates Commissioners that what they were leaving him was so uncomfortable that he would rather get rid of the whole of it, and, if they were not prepared to take the whole of it, then they would not get any of it. That was, he thought, a reasonable and just proposal, and he hail very great pleasure in supporting it.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that if ever there was justification of the Motion of the Prime Minister it was to be found in the painful exhibition of the last half-hour. In an irrelevant and incoherent speech the extraordinary doctrine had been laid down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in support of this absurd Amendment, that if a field were taken for a railway under the Lands Clauses Act, the owner might require that the promoters of the railway or any other under taking should take not merely the field but the whole estate. He had in his mind the case of an estate where a railway ran through fields, and stretching from the side of that railway were about three miles of estate; yet the hon. and learned Gentle man told them that the owner of that estate could have objected, and required the promoters to take the whole of the property. And that was the sort of argument which was addressed to the Committee, supported by wearisome and tedious iteration. The time of the Committee was wasted in this frivolous, vexatious, and paltry manner. Here they had a proposal to take a small quantity of land for a great public purpose, in pursuance of a great compact between the Tory Party and themselves, and ratified by Parliament, and then they had this Amendment which pro posed that if the Commissioners required 100 acres of land for the purpose of re storing evicted tenants the landlord was to have the power to require that the Commissioners should take the whole of his land or none. Yet on the same side of the House, among members near the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they had heard
  1258
  the criticism only a short time before that for the whole of Ireland not more than 80,000 acres were to be taken. And this was called serious debate! It was trifling with the time and patience of the Committee. It was trifling with the intelligence of the country, and its character was reflected in the paltry and dwindling minorities which they saw in the divisions. These hon. Members represented a class who tried to put obstacles in the way of tenants who had done no wrong except to pay them too much rent in the past. He thought that it was time that their proceedings were so regulated as to prevent tedious repetition and continued irrelevance. He repeated that if anything justified the Motion of the Prime Minister it was the painful exhibition which they had just witnessed.
  MR. BARRIEsaid the hon. Member for North Cork had complained of the want of lucidity in the speech of the Member for the University of Dublin. He thought he might very well pass the same criticism in regard to the speech of the hon. Member. The Amendment before the Committee provided that where part of an estate was to be acquired compulsorily, it should be lawful for the owner to require that the whole estate should be taken. That was not an Amendment which ought to give rise to any want of sincerity. It was hardly less import ant than any other Amendment which had been put down. Let the Committee consider what was likely to happen in a fairly large estate such as were met with in South Tyrone, where tenants paid rents and were delighted to have the opportunity of paying. In South Tyrone, as in North Londonderry, evicted tenants were so very scarce that he was sure they would look with interest upon one when he was unearthed.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): There are 282 evicted tenants in South Tyrone—more than there were in some of the southern counties.
  MR. BARRIE, continuing,said that out of the 8,500 listed even 282 was not

  1259
  a very large number. But he regretted that even that number should be manufactured.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Amendment, which confines the discussion to very narrow limits.
  MR. BARRIEstated that the number of evicted tenants in his constituency only amounted to twenty-five, and only five of those had been able to impose upon the Estates Commissioners. So far as the proposal in the Bill was concerned the division he had the honour to represent objected to it in to to. He supported the Amendment because he felt that the exercise of such a large and unheard-of discretion as was proposed to be given to the Estates Commissioners to impose a certain small class of evicted tenants upon a large estate where there were peaceful and contented tenants, would not only create discontent among the tenants but depreciate the property of those tenants as well as the property of the landlord. It could not be con tested that what were now termed evicted tenants were from the point of view of agriculturists detrimentals— men who had not succeeded in their business. It was because he represented those who had succeeded and desired to succeed by honest and straightforward means, that he had pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  SIR E. CARSONpointed out that in the case of placing one tenant on an estate the cost of the investigation of title would be as great for that one holding as for the whole estate. That would be a very great hardship upon the owner or upon the tenant. That was another reason why it should be considered whether the Estates Commissioners should have power to place a few tenants on an estate without buying the whole.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had put an Amendment on the Paper to make the point perfectly clear. He quite agreed that the landlord ought not to be made to bear the cost of compulsory purchase. If they took the man's land compulsorily
  1260
  they ought to bear the costs of inquiring into the title. He held very strong opinions as to the absurd amount of the costs that were involved in the investigations of title, under the whole of the Irish Land Acts, and he hoped means might be found of facilitating and accelerating the process and reducing the enormous mountain of costs which had been incurred without in any way affecting a single question as to the right of the landlord to sell. To acquire a whole estate because 30 acres of land were wanted to reinstate a tenant would increase enormously the amount of land required, and he was unable to accept the Amendment; but as regarded the costs, that question would arise hereafter, and he would himself propose an Amendment to deal with that question.
  MR. J. F. MASONagreed that it would be unreasonable if a small portion of land were required, that his Amendment should operate in an absurd manner. He thought, however, that there would be no difficulty in amending it in such a way as to provide that if more than a. certain proportion of the estate was taken the landlord should have power to require that the whole estate should be bought. It would be generally acknowledged that to go into a tailor's shop and buy compulsorily a pair of trousers and a coat and leave the waistcoat would be unjust. He thought some provision was necessary to meet this point.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTappealed to the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who used to be a great advocate of compulsory purchase, and who had denounced the evicted tenants in round terms, to state whether he was prepared to allow the principle of compulsion to be generally applied and thus permit honest men to come by their own as well as the evicted tenants on behalf of whom alone the Government now proposed to act.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that as he understood the Amendment it proposed that if part of an estate were taken against the wishes of the owner he should be in a position to insist that the whole of the estate should be taken. He admitted that if only 30 acres were required on an estate containing 10,000 acres it would

  1261
  be awkward for the Estates Commissioners to have to take over the whole. At the same time one had to look at the fairness of the Bill to the landlord. Let them consider what the effect would be if three holdings amounting to about 90 acres were taken from an estate of 10,000 acres. In that case three tenants might be reinstated. These tenants would be undeserving people. [Cries of "Oh."] Well, that was his opinion. They had either not paid their rents, in which case they were not fit people to be put into farms, or they were able to pay and did not choose to do it. What would be the effect oil the other tenants on an estate of the reinstatement of an evicted tenant? They would probably refuse to pay their rents in the hope that they would be put in a nice farm somewhere else with the help of money provided by the State. One must not forget that human nature being what it was, if they said to people: "If you repudiate your lawful obligations, or if you are unfortunate enough not to be able to carry them out, the State will find the money to put you in another farm," there would be a great temptation to a number of people to follow that advice. That was why the Commissioners ought to take over the whole estate and become responsible for all the tenants. If the Amendment were carried, there would, no doubt, be considerable trouble to the Estates Commissioners, but it was trouble which they ought to take upon their own shoulders. He denied that it was for the public advantage that the evicted tenants should be reinstated. It was for the advantage of a particular class.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the hon. Baronet opposed the Act of 1903, and therefore was more entitled than some hon. Members to argue as he had. It was perfectly well understood that under that Act the evicted tenants should be restored.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid it did not restore them by compulsion. He opposed that Act because, having studied the Irish question for a considerable number of years in the. House, he had come to the conclusion that the more they gave to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and to the Irish tenants, the more they wanted. He was not so green, to use a
  1262
  colloquial expression, as many hon. Members, and he agreed with the late Lord Salisbury that all they could do was to administer the law in a resolute manner.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the difficulty in this matter arose in two ways. He would take the case of a landlord who evicted a tenant, say fifteen years ago, and was himself in possession of the land. There were 600 such cases in Ireland. At the Land Conference the land lords said with a certain degree of fairness—he admitted that the argument was not all on one side—that they declined to take back the evicted tenants, because they wore on bad terms with them, and because these men had given a lot of trouble. Very well, it was proposed to put them back, not as tenants, but as purchasers. That was a wholly different thing. That broke the relationship between the landlord and the evicted tenant. If the landlord took up the ground—and it was a possible ground to take—that these men who were re stored to their holdings would demoralise the whole estate, then the remedy for that was perfectly clear. The landlord could still the estate under the Act of 1903. That answered the question of title.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: For what price would he sell it?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew the answer. It was simply this—if the landlord thought it a breach of the compact to take these men back because they would demoralise his estate, he could sell the whole estate under the Act of 1903.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLindicated dissent
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head, but he knew as well as any living man that one of his colleagues cleared out of his estate in County Antrim with thirty years purchase. The second point was that because the Estates Commissioners desired a certain amount of un-tenanted land, they would have power to take it compulsorily for the purpose of

  1263
  reinstating the evicted tenants. That was the power which this Bill would give. The mover of the Amendment had contended that if the Estates Commissioners took compulsorily 100 acres of a 5,000-acre estate, they should be forced to take the whole estate compulsorily, although they did not want it. That proposal could be left to the judgment of the Committee. It was one which even the most deter mined opponents of the Bill could not stand to, and the Government could not accept it. The purchase of land compulsorily, for which the Commissioners had no use, was advocated by hon. Members who earlier in the debate had declaimed against compulsion altogether. Every honest land reformer went as far without compulsion as sensible men were pre pared to go with reason, and that was the length to which he himself went. The difference between himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that he promised to vote for compulsion, and did it while they promised to vote for it, and voted against it.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the hon. Member for South Tyrone ought not to have made the statement that his hon. friend the Member for North Armagh got thirty years purchase for his land.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I qualify the statement by saying that the Report of the Estates Commissioners shows that he received twenty-seven years purchase and three years bonus.
  MR CHARLES CRAIGsaid his hon. friend gave to his tenants over and above very considerable rights of turbary.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I know that bog
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that if the Estates Commissioners compulsorily took possession of the best parts of an estate for the purpose of reinstating the evicted tenants the landlord would have the balance thrown on his hands. The hon. Member for South Tyrone knew perfectly well that the Act of 1903 provided for the Estates Commissioners purchasing the whole of an estate from a landlord for the purpose of re-selling to the tenants. That being so, where was the hardship in
  1264
  this case if the landlord asked that they should purchase the whole of an estate when they proposed to purchase a portion of it? It was reasonable that a landlord should be able to say to the Estates Com missioners that they should take the whole of an estate off his hands.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that the hon. Member for South Tyrone, had laid be fore the House the most extraordinary proposition he had ever heard. The hon. Member kept his eye fixed on only one side of the proposition and argued that little or no hardship would be inflicted on the owner of a property by its compulsory evisceration for the purposes of this Bill. He contended that there would be such hardship. The hon. Member did not enter into the feelings of owners of property, but he would be a much fairer-minded legislator and a much better law-giver if he would occasionally try to understand the feelings of those on whom he constantly wished to trample. If he could understand the feeling of ownership of property, the deep regard the owners had for the discharge of their duty, and the enjoyment of their rights and privileges, the owners would have more chance of fair play being meted out to them. To say that the owner was not injured was an absurdity.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Who injured Home?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I really must protest against that old story being resuscitated.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I assure you, Mr. Emmott, that, although you protest against it, I do not, and if the hon. Member goes down to the country where I am known, and asks that question, I only hope I shall be at hand to protect him from the horse-trough. And I can assure the hon. Member there is no one whom I would rescue with greater pleasure. Continuing, the right hon. Gentleman said that it must surely be admitted that by the compulsory division of an estate, the capital or selling value of the property was considerably lowered. He appealed to the Chief Secretary, who

  1265
  was getting so bored with his own Bill to try the experiment of acquiring a nice property in Ireland, and having a bit of it completely taken away compulsorily. He thought the result would be that the right hon. Gentleman would very soon sever his connection with Ireland, and that he would not get the same price for his property as he gave for it. The capital value of the property must be decreased. It was a great mistake of hon. Gentlemen opposite to assume that the selling value of an estate was based solely and absolutely on the rental value. It was based also on the amenity which surrounded the estate, on the satisfaction it gave to the owner, on all the links and associations which went to make up what in this country was called the homeland—he did not know what it was called in Ireland—by the ties of long connection, and long descent. When they came compulsorily to extract from the estate 100 acres here and another 100 acres there, they could not but make the owner of the rest of the property dissatisfied. Those who said that that would not lower the value of the land differed from every auctioneer or land agent engaged in letting land in the country. If by their action they inflicted a loss upon an innocent man, they themselves ought to stand the loss, and should not play the double game of first carrying out, a political move, and then casting the loss they inflicted upon somebody else's shoulders. If a transaction
  of that sort were brought before some of the Judges, epithets might be applied to it which would be decidedly unpleasant. He could not see why landed property should be dealt with in a manner which broke all the canons of fair play. He believed that the argument of the hon. Member for South Tyrone had entirely broken down. If it were said that the Government wanted to carry this measure to a successful issue, that was the common purpose of all the House. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes,. they all recognised that the reinstatement of the evicted tenants would make for the contentment of the people of Ireland as a whole. He never recognised the full force of the grievance of the evicted tenant. To him the evicted tenant was a man who was evicted for dishonesty. He did not represent martyrdom or anything which justified exceptional treatment; but while not pressing his opinion on this point, he begged those on both sides of the House who wanted to make this measure efficacious, and who did not desire to heal one wound by creating another, to endeavour to be fair to the other interests involved, and not to make a contented tenantry by making a discontented ownership.
  Question put—
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 76: Noes, 284. (Division List No. 298.)

  AYES.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gretten, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peer

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ronaldshag, Earl of

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cave, George

  Hervey, F. W.F. (Bury S. Ed'm'ds)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keswick. William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Turnour, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Alexander Acland-hood and

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Lord Balcarres.

  Warde, Col. C. E. [(Kent, Mid.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Agnew, George William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'll)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Alden, Percy

  Elibank, Master of

  Lambert, George

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Ambrose, Robert

  Essex, R. W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Barker, John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lough, Thomas

  Beauchamp, E.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Bell, Richard

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Gilhooly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Glendinning, R. G.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Boland, John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Kean, John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W Brampton

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Branch, James

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Killop, W.

  Brigg, John

  Halpin, J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bright, J. A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brodie, H. C.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harwood, George

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mason, A. E. W.(Coventry)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Massie, J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meagher, Michael

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Menzies, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Clough, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L. L.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hogan, Michael

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murnaghan, (George)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Murphy, John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.)

  Murray, James

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Myer, Hortaio

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Napier, T. B.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nicholls, George

  Cox, Harold

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'st'r)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Crooks, William

  Jenkins, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davis, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kelley, George D.

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Grady, J.

  1268

  1269

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Malley, Milliam

  Rowlands, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Russell, T. W.

  Vivian, Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

  Seddon, J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'th'mpton)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sherwell Arthur James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Radford, G. H.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim S.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Snowden, P.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rees, J. D.

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mp'n)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Young Samuel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland. J. E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Tomkinson, James

  Pease.

  MR. CLANCYmoved to amend sub section (a) by omitting the words limiting the compulsory acquisition of parcels of land for those evicted tenants, "who, or whoso predecessors, were evicted from their holdings before the passing of the Act of 1903." He explained that the Act of 1903 enabled tenants evicted since the year 1878 to be restored to holdings provided for them by the Commissioners, and inasmuch as there had been no change in the law, a man who was evicted since the Act of 1903 was enabled to be restored, because he had been evicted since 1878. He believed it was actually the fact that among the 2,000, roughly speaking, whom the Estates Commissioners thought were proper per sons to be restored, were included a certain number of the tenants evicted since the Act of 1903. This Amendment simply sought to extend the provision of the compulsory acquisition of land to those cases. He did not think the Government should make a distinction between the two classes of tenants. There must be many deserving cases among those who were evicted since 1903, and as a matter of fact there was not an Irish representative in the House who did not know of one such case, and he did not think that if the whole were included, it would not add more than 200 to the 2,000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 14, to leave out from '1903' to the word 'who,' in line 16."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out down to the word 'before' in line 16, stand part of the clause."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that, although he was prepared to agree with the hon. Member that the number of evicted tenants would not be materially increased, he found it to be impossible to accept the Amendment, having regard to the answers he had already given to Amendments moved from the benches opposite. The Government must confine themselves in this matter as far as they could to what he had called the Parliamentary bargain, and when they were taking for the first time compulsory powers to reinstate the evicted tenants they must confine the power to those tenants who were evicted before the Act of 1903. By confining the Bill in this way they were in a position to hold out to the House, the country, and the Treasury, the necessary and final limitations as to the number of persons in whose aid the Exchequer was being invoked. The Government had therefore inserted this limitation in the subsection, and he thought they must adhere to it.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not feel able to make this small concession. The right hon. Gentleman had not given any answer to the point made by his hon. friend. He pointed out that amongst those 2,000 cases, to which the right hon. Gentleman had so often alluded, and which had been investigated by the Estates Commissioners and decided as fit and proper cases for reinstatement, there were a certain number in which eviction, took place after 1903, and if that were so, he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman was justified in saying to the Commissioners that these few cases should be excluded. The right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly consistent in accepting the Amendment. If he found that among those 2,000 there were a certain number evicted since 1903 he would be perfectly justified in extending compulsory powers to them. It would be very hard if they were excluded from this Bill. They all knew of some of these cases that had arisen since 1903, and they knew that they had arisen because of the action of the landlords in refusing to sell and refusing to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1903. There had been a few hard cases. They were included in the 2,000, and he really could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman struck at this small matter now. He earnestly asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider it. To refuse tin Amendment would be deliberately to leave outside the Bill some of the very hardest cases that had occurred for years past.
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had refused other Amendments to limit the Act, and lie thought his attitude was consistent with regard to this one. The Chief Secretary rested his position on what he was pleased to call the bargain of 1903. He ventured to suggest that when he took a foundation for his case the right hon. Gentleman should see that it was on rock rather than on sand. As had been more than once pointed out the Chief Secretary's interpretation of the Parliamentary bargain was not that of the Opposition, nor was it that of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. And they now knew what was to be the pressure
  1272
  to be brought to bear. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that this was a very small matter and meant a very small addition to the number to be included. It only showed the dangerous ground they were treading when they departed from what the Chief Secretary called a bargain, though, from the interpretation which the Chief Secretary and others had given to it, it had almost ceased to be a bargain. They did not know the number of tenants, nor the class of tenants to be admitted. If the Chief Secretary had given them the information they had asked for on that side of the House, and told them the number who were to be turned out, they would then have been on level terms with hon. Members below the gangway, and have known what was exactly the position with regard to this Amendment. They were told that there were certain cases which were included in the 2,000. Could not they have information which would be available to both sides of the House, telling them exactly what the facts were in regard to the cases before the Commissioners. It was quite clear from the two speeches which they had heard that these extra, cases would be pressed, and that everyone would say that his own case was a particularly hard one and ought to be added to those already included by the Commissioners. He did not regret the decision at which the Chief Secretary had arrived; on the contrary, he thought that he was bound in the general interests of the community to keep within certain limits. He regretted the foundation, however, on which the right hon. Gentleman based his position, because in the first place it was not the Parliamentary bargain, and, in the second place, it was now found out that the limitations which he had imposed were limitations which would never be maintained.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGsaid the bargain made in 1903 was that the taxpayers of Great Britain should pay £100,000,000 to settle the land purchase question under the Act of that year, so that the tenants might become the owners of the farms, and at the same time it was agreed by all parties that the evicted tenants, who at that time were estimated by hon. Gentlemen below

  1273
  the gangway to be about 600 in number, were to be reinstated or provided with new farms. The persons who were to be allowed to avail themselves of this principle were those who had been evicted from their farms practically up to the date of the passing of the Act of 1903. They all firmly believed that that was to be a settlement of the whole question. The first breach of that pledge was made by the Chief Secretary in introducing this Bill, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin County was a still more glaring breach of that pledge. Now it was proposed that persons claiming to be evicted tenants should bring pressure to boar on the Chief Secretary to be included in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman by refusing to alter the list of 2,000 tenants who had been accepted by the Commissioners practically admitted that great pressure would be put upon them, and the Amendment was the first evidence of the pressure that undoubtedly would be brought to bear in order to have a larger class included than the 2,000. Of course, they knew that the Chief Secretary had said, though reluctantly, that he was against the Amendment. Why on earth should they go on for ever reinstating tenants who, apart from politics altogether, required to be sent back to their forms? If the right hon. Gentleman knew more about Ireland than he did he would know that he could not set a worse precedent than to hold out to improvident farmers, men who had neglected their holdings, who were behind in the battle of life because of their own shortcomings, that they would be restored to their holdings; and, to judge from the reluctance with which he had given up this Amendment, they had only to bring sufficient pressure to bear, they had only to cry out loudly enough, to be introduced to all the advantages of the Bill. If they had known that the evicted tenants clause was going to be used in the way it was being used many of them certainly would have considered the matter very differently. He was sorry that they had not realised at the time that they were going to reinstate not only evicted tenants for political reasons, but also the very much larger and as he thought very much less
  1274
  deserving, class of persons who lost their farms from a hundred causes that had nothing to do with politics, and which held out very few reasons for indulgence in that respect. He was glad, however, that the Chief Secretary had resisted this Amendment, and he only intervened in order to show what was going to happen. He ventured to prophesy that hon. Members, when they had been a few more years in the House, and especially if a Radical Government was in power, would see another batch of more or less undeserving tenants seeking to come under this Bill after it had become an Act.
  Mr. O'SHEEsaid he regretted the decision at which the Chief Secretary had arrived. He knew that there were persons recommended by the Commissioners, but it must be remembered that there had been evictions since 1903. Why should not the Commissioners have a discretion in these cases? All oppression and harshness on the part of certain landlords did not cease after the passing of the Act of 1903; on the contrary some landlords had become more oppressive and harsh than before. He instanced the case where the tenants had been given a reduction upon their first term rent. If the land lord of an adjoining estate refused to sell the object of Parliament would be defeated, because that particular land lord refused to accept the same terms as his neighbours. Consequently that landlord's tenants, being unable to get the reduction which adjoining tenants had got under the Act of 1903, would suffer, and some of them would be unable to meet their obligations and would be evicted. Was it not very unfair to say that because a landlord was stubborn and would not sell at the average price such tenants should not be entitled to restoration in case the land had been sold? The right hon. Gentleman was now interfering with the carrying out of the report upon which the Bill was based. If some of the 2,000 tenants were excluded the Treasury would be the gainers, and he could not see that there would be any grievance from a financial point of view if the Amendment were accepted.

  1275
  With regard to the sanctity of the bargain of 1903, it was violated by the landlords of Ireland almost the day after it came into operation, because they refused in the majority of cases even to allow the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners to go on to the evicted tenants' land. The Amendment referred to only a few cases, but there was a question of principle involved, and he did not think that tenants ought to be left out in the cold because landlords had been unreasonable.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid the debate on the Amendment had been interesting in that it had disclosed the fact that hon. Members below the gang way had information as to the names of those 2,000 lucky persons who had received the sanction of the Estates Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member for North Dublin and the hon. Member who had just sat down had both said that they knew of cases where tenants had been evicted since the Act of 1903. Evidently hon. Members below the gangway had information which was not available to the rest of the House and which had been consistently refused.
  Mr. O'SHEEsaid that he knew one case, because he had seen a letter from one of the inspectors to an evicted tenant.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that the hon. Member for North Dublin had also spoken of facts within his own know ledge.
  Mr. CLANCYsaid that what he meant to say was that among the 2,000 tenants he understood that there were several of the persons to whom he had referred.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that even that amount of information had been denied to the House, and he had no means of obtaining it.
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDWe are in touch with the evicted tenants.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that the imagined the information came from sources much nearer at hand. The Chief Secretary must see the necessity of giving
  1276
  the information to the House. He was not aware that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had ever been in direct touch with the evicted tenants.
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDsaid he was sorry to say that he had been present at hundreds of evictions.
  Mr. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that unless the right hon. Gentleman limited in some way the application of this process he would be creating considerable trouble in the future for himself and his successors. It had been said that this was a small matter because the application of the clause would be limited. That was exactly what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said in 1903. He said then it concerned only about 800 tenants. They now knew that the number had gone up to 8,000. The hon. and learned Member said that if the Amendment were accepted it would apply to only 100 cases. If the 100 multiplied in the same manner as the 800 in 1903, the proposal now made would involve 1,000 cases. He hoped he Chief Secretary would adhere to the rather faint-hearted decision which he seemed to have arrived at in refusing to accept the Amendment.
  Question put.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The "Noes" have it.
  MR, LONSDALErose to move the Amendment next on the Paper, but
  THE CHAIRMAN, intervening,said he had made a mistake, and must put the Question again.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: As a matter of fact our Amendment has been carried. I submit that as the Amendment has been declared carried there is no power in the Chairman to go back on the decision of the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: I gave the decision quite by mistake. I will put the Question again.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: On the point of Order. I respectfully say that there is

  1277
  no precedent for such procedure. You put the Question perfectly distinctly and we understood how the Question was put. I presume that every other body under stood it. It is not our fault if a few hon. Members did not understand it. The matter has really been decided by the voices of the House. We called "No" when the Question was put; there was no cry of "Aye"; and you, according to the voices, declared that the "Noes" had it. Surely that decision must stand?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I certainly intended to adhere most firmly to the decision which F had arrived at, and I can only say that that will be the decision of the Government. That question will here after arise. Therefore, it should not for a moment be supposed that the Government waive their opposition to the Amendment. I had intended to say a word in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I did not, perhaps foolishly. I can assure the Committee that it is the fixed intention of the Government to reject the Amendment, and if it were now allowed to stand the mistake would be corrected at a sub sequent stage.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Of course the Government may take any action they like on the Report stage: but I submit that the decision of the Chairman must stand until the Report stage.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: On reconsideration I find that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is quite right; I only heard the "Noes," and I have given the decision for the "Noes." That must stand until the Report stage. Members voting to the contrary should make their voices heard.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment was so unexpectedly carried, that I am not quite sure whether there are words consequential on the Amendment which should be omitted. It would be a great convenience to the Committee if you will tell us how we stand.
  *The CHAIRMAN: The position is that the words referred to in the Amendment are taken out. The other question I have to put is that the remaining
  1278
  words "before the passing of the said Act, and," should also go.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I submit that if the first part of the Amendment is declared carried, then the remaining words cannot be put.
  *The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I was wrong in my first impression. The omission of these words carried as a consequence the omission of the other words.
  LORD R. CECIL: I am reluctant to rise on this point of order, but it is essential that we should get a clearer understanding. The Question you put was that the words down to "before," stand part of the clause. The remaining words have not been dealt with.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I have explained that the remaining words go consequentially.
  Lord R. CECILsaid that that had not been decided by the House. He contended that the remaining words must be put and dealt with.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he had decided that the Amendment carried the omission of the remaining words.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite understood that if certain words were omitted they might carry with them other words as a matter of grammatical construction; but he suggested that it was not the duty of the Chairman to excise words from the Bill without putting the Question to the Committee.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was not correct. The position had been rightly stated by the right hon. Member for South Dublin. The words were left out on account of the previous decision of the Committee.
  Mr. CONDONmoved to leave out the words ''May, nineteen hundred and seven," and to insert the words ''January, nineteen hundred and eight." He believed that this alteration would have no ulterior effect on the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, to leave out the words 'May, nineteen hundred and sevan,' and to insert the words 'January, nineteen hundred and eight.'"—(Mr. Condon.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  Mr. BIRRELLsaid he could not accept the Amendment practically for the same reason which he had already given; and he hoped his hon. friends would make their voices heard in his support on this occasion, and adhere to the conditions laid down in the Bill.
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he sympathised with him, and that the Opposition would do their best to help him. The right hon. Gentleman had been so long accustomed to inarticulate support in the House from his supporters in order that they might give more effective support to him in the Lobby.
  Mr. BIRRELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid they were landed constantly in a different position from that in which they now found them selves. If all the right hon. Gentleman wanted was articulate support the Opposition would give it to him.
  Mr. O'SHEEsaid that he believed that the landlords on many estates from which the tenants had been evicted had not been disposed to sell their estates, on the assumption that under the Act of 1903 the evicted tenants could not be restored unless the landlord agreed. The tenants had given up hope that the landlords would agree, and that was the reason why in many cases the tenants did not send in their applications at all, or not in time.
  Amendment negatived.
  And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  On the Question that the House be now adjourned,
  *Mr. LUPTONsaid he desired to call attention to a matter of some importance. It was with reference to the protection of the Fleet. In common with some other Members of the House he had had the privilege of visiting the Fleet recently, and had learned a great deal, and had been much impressed with what he saw. He had asked a great many questions—among? them, if it so happened that that night a foreign torpedo boat came up to the anchorage of the Fleet, what was there to prevent it discharging torpedoes and blowing up the battleships? Were there any vessels of any sort, such as picket boats, for the defence of the Fleet? The answer he got was that there was no protection, but that it was exceedingly improbable that such an attack should be made in time of peace. They knew that no competent general of land forces would do otherwise than protect those forces by means of sentinels. They knew that Port Arthur was attacked by surprise by the Japanese, and that we did the same thing at Elsinore. So long as we spent £30,000,000 per annum in maintaining a Fleet, it should not go to bed every night without a proper guard. People might say that we would have notice before an attack was made upon the Fleet, but his contention was that in time of peace such precautions should be taken as would allow of the Navy being always protected. No foe who desired to attack us would give notice of his intention. If the Government said that it was not necessary to have a Navy at all he would go into the division lobby and support them, but as long as we had a Navy it should be protected against any unforeseen attack. He did not how ever think that any nation desired to attack us.
  Adjourned at Thirteen minutes after Eleven o'clock