Commons Sitting of 27 June 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill; Taff Vale Railway Bill.—Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Central London Railway Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
Southend Water Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Ladybank Sewerage Drainage and Water Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill.—As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Canal Tolls and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Kendal Corporation Bill [Lords]; Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [Lords]; Wisbech Water Bill [Lords]; Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords]. — Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited [Lords].— Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation [Lords]. — Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Major SEELY reported from the Committee on Group J. of Private Bills; That Mr. Duffy, one of the Members of the Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Major SEELY reported from the Committee on Group J. of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Monday next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.
Report to He upon the Table.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G.)
Sir HENRY KIMBER reported from the Committee on. Group G. of Private Bills; That Mr. Fullerton, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Amendments to—Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Colne Valley Water Company for the raising of capital; and for other purposes." [Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords.]]
Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords].— Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION BILL).
  Two Petitions from Newton-in-Maker-field, against; to lie upon the Table.
PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
Petitions for legislation: From Alston with Garrigill; and, Isle of Wight; to lie upon the Table.
SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Inverness, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
Petition from London, in favour to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL.
Petition from the Dublin Port, and Docks Board, against alterations, praying to be heard by counsel; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1902 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1902, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 223.]
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 17th June; Mr. Lloyd Morgan]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3842 and 3843 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented, of Report No. 526 (St. Helena, Annual Report for 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
Lunacy. Copy of Sixty-first Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 225.]
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
Address for "Return showing the working of the regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, with statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the proceedings instituted by the director in accordance of with those regulations, from the 1st day of January 1906, to the 31st day December, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 183, of Session 1906)."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
COMPANY LAWS IN THE BRITISH EMPIRE.
Copy presented: of Comparative Analysis of the Company Laws of the United Kingdom, India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with a Memorandum prepared for the Imperial Conference, 1907, by direction of the Board of Trade [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Kennington Park Telegraph Office.
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General why telegrams addressed to residents in Kennington Park, S.E., are no longer receivable at the Kennington Park post office, thereby necessitating wires addressed to inhabitants in this district being received at a distant post office and transmitted by messenger to Kennington Park, with the result that considerable delay is involved; and whether the telegraphic facilities in question, which were formerly enjoyed by business houses in this neighbourhood, can be again afforded.
  68
  Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am inquiring into the Question.

  Women on Scottish County Councils.
  Mr. GULLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland how many towns councils and how many county councils there are in Scotland; what is the total electorate for these bodies; and how many of the electors are women.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The latest information that is available on this subject is contained in a Return (No. 269) to an order of the House of Lords dated 7th July, 1890.

  Women on Scottish Library Committees.
  Mr. GULLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the total number of public library committees in Scotland, the number on which women are members, the total membership of library committees, and the number that are women, distinguishing between those that are members of the elected bodies and those that are co-opted.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The information required by my hon. friend is not available; and, although I recognise the interest that such information would possess, I do not consider the collection of the statistics would justify the amount of labour that would be entailed.

  Women on Scottish School Boards.
  MR. GULLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the total number of school boards in Scotland; the number on which women are members; the total number of school board members; and the number that are women.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) There are 972 school boards in Scotland with a total membership of 5,680. At the elections which took place last year, women representatives were returned to serve on sixty-three boards, the total

  69
  number of women elected being seventy-six.

  Women on Scottish Parish Councils.
  MR. GULLAND: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the total number of parish councils in Scotland; the number on which women are members; the total number of parish councillors; and the number that are women.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair) The total number of parish councils in Scotland is 874, the number on which women are members is twenty-two, the total number of parish councillors is 7,920, and the number of women parish councillors is 37. There may have been one or two changes in the above figures since the election in 1904, but they may be taken as substantially correct at the present time.

  Irish Land Judge's Court.
  Mr. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state for how many estates in the Land Judge's Court for sale have the Estates Commissioners made purchase proposals, the name of each such estate, the county in which it is situate, and the date of the proposal; and whether, seeing that the Estates Commissioners and their inspectors possess special competence for estimating the value of land, and in view of the cost of the Land Court and the hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people by the delay in its proceedings, he will give favourable consideration to the desirability of transferring to the Estates Commissioners all estates for sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have issued proposals for the purchase of seventy-six estates in the Land Judge's Court. In the case of sixty-one estates the Land Judge has accepted, or indicated his willingness to accept, the Commissioners' offer, in three cases the Commissioners' offer has been refused, in one case their offer has been withdrawn at the request of the
  70
  Land Judge, and in the remaining eleven cases the offers are still pending. These facts do not appear to indicate the desirability of considering the suggestion made in the latter part of the Question.

  Merchandise Marks.
  Mr. JOWETT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Australian Commonwealth has withdrawn or modified the regulations made under the Commerce Act (Trade Descriptions) of 1905, relating to the composition, weight, quantity, and place of origin, of goods imported into Australia, so far as the same applies to textile exported from this country; and, if the said regulations have not been withdrawn, will he say what are the requirements of the Australian Government so far as they apply to the importation of textiles.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade are informed that the regulations in question are still in force. In reply, however, to inquiries made by various chambers of commerce in the United Kingdom the Commonwealth Government have given a decision to the following effect:—"Piece goods suitings and vestings are not included under the regulations. Piece goods are not articles of apparel. If the terms number and yards are marked on the goods which have not been made in an English-speaking country the country of origin must be stated in conjunction with such marking. It will not be necessary to state whether the length is net or gross. All that is required is that if any length is stated it shall be correct. It is not necessary to state the composition of piece goods. If exporters to Australia do not wish to label their piece goods at all they need not do so." This decision was published in the Board of Trade Journal for 14th March.

  Vacancies in the Post Office.
  Mr. WILES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his Department during 1905 or any subsequent

  71
  period experienced difficulty in obtaining enough ex-soldiers to fill the vacancies in the postal service open to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) During 1905 difficulty was occasionally experienced in some districts in filling postal appointments due to ex-soldiers; but the cases of difficulty have been comparatively few.

  Electricity Meters.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what facilities are obtainable by the general public for procuring an official test of electricity meters by any official of the Board of Trade, on payment of any prescribed fee; and whether electric meters, issued by the makers, are tested by any official before issue to the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The Board of Trade have no power to undertake the test of consumers' electricity meters. Consumers may require their meters to be tested, on payment of a prescribed fee, by an electric inspector, who may be appointed, as regards undertakings in London, by the county council, and, as regards undertakings outside London, by the Board of Trade, on formal application being made to them where the undertakers are a local authority, and by the local authority where the undertakers are a company.

  Missing Camel Corps.
  MR. KETTLE:To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give information as to certain casualties re-ported to have been sustained by No. 2 Company, Camel Corps, which left for Bir Natron, under Bimbashi Whittingham, in February last.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The garrison of Bir Natron
  72
  evacuated that post on 10th or 15th April, intending to proceed to Abu Tabari, where they expected to meet the convoy of supplies which had left Debba on 12th March. The party consisted of one officer, forty men, eight women, one child, thirty-eight camels, and a guide. On the fourth day of their march, having failed to reach Abu Tabari, the guide confessed that he had lost his way, and advised that scouts should be sent out. Two parties were accordingly despatched, of which one found the convoy above referred to, from which they obtained water for their party, and retraced their steps. On regaining their party they found only eleven men, seven women, and a boy; the officer, nineteen men, one woman and two Arabs having, for some reason which cannot be ascertained, gone southwards with all the camels. A search party was sent out to find them, but a dust storm frustrated their efforts, and the remainder of the party, with the help of the convoy, moved into Abu Tabari. From there information as to the incident was sent to Khandak, and Search parties were at once sent out, with the result that the second scouting party were discovered alive; but although every effort was made no trace could be found of the officer's party which had started south, with the exception of one body. It is, therefore, to be feared that the officer, Mulazim Awal Ali Effendi Hassan, and the twenty-two persons with him have lost their lives. All the survivers are. well and have arrived at El Bab, in Wadi el Kab.

  Irish Taxation.
  Mr. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount of Ireland's contribution to tax revenue, for each year from 1897 to 1907; what proportion did the contribution of Ireland bear to that of Great Britain; and, if the contribution of Ireland had been based on the unanimous finding of the Financial Relations Commission, 1894-6 (i.e., limited to one:-twentieth of the tax revenue raised in Great Britain), what would have been the amounts for the years in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—

  Year.

  Tax Revenue contributed by Ireland.

  Proportion of Ireland's Tax Revenue to that of Great Britain.

  One-twentieth of Tax Revenue contributed by Great Britain.

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  1897–8

  7,144,000

  7·9

  4,517,900

  1898–9

  7,197,000

  7·8

  4,617,900

  1899–1900

  7,619,000

  7·6

  5,016,950

  1900–1

  8,453,000

  7·6

  5,530,150

  1901–2

  8,712,000

  7·2

  6,074,350

  1902–3

  9,097,000

  7·1

  6,381,550

  1903–4

  8,622,000

  7·3

  5,875,350

  1904–5

  8,601,000

  7·2

  5,979,950

  1905–6

  8,254,000

  7·0

  5,925,850

  1906–7

  8,274,000

  6·9

  5,987,050

  It should be pointed out, however, that if Ireland's tax revenue had been reduced to the amounts shown in the last column the total revenue derived from Ireland would in most years have been insufficient to cover the cost of Irish services. The result would have been, therefore, that on the whole period Ireland would have contributed nothing to Imperial expenditure, to the service of the National Debt, or of the Army and Navy, while the taxpayers of Great Britain would have had to contribute about £5,000,000 to Irish local expenditure.

  King's County Council Appointment.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that the King's County Council, at a special meeting held at Tullamore on 19th June, appointed as inspector under the Sheep Dipping Orders a man named Horan, on the ground that he belonged to the United Irish League, although Mr. Colclough, who held the appointment during the previous year, was reported by the secretary as having been most efficient; and whether he will give directions that such appointments
  74
  are not to be filled up on the grounds of political expediency, but for reasons of technical ability to fill them.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have no official information as to the grounds of selection in this instance. In the case of temporary appointments of this kind it is not the practice to interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority.

  Irish Primary Education.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the public meetings which have been and are being held all over Ireland on primary education; and whether, in view of the fact that all sections of the Irish people, irrespective of politics, have passed unanimous resolutions at these meetings in favour of much-needed reforms in the system of primary education, he can state when the subject will be dealt with; and, if not, will he explain the reasons for ignoring this question in which the whole country is united.

  75
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am aware that many meetings in reference to this subject have been held, and that there is a strong feeling in favour of giving better salaries and pensions to the teachers. The Irish Government have no intention of ignoring the question; but, having regard to the large amount of money involved, it is not possible to deal with it at present.

  Inchitolone Moonlighting Outrage.
  MR. HICKS BEACH (: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a police report from the constabulary of Kanturk district concerning a moonlighting outrage against the person of John Curtin, of Inchitolone, near Newmarket; whether a party of men, armed and disguised, decoyed this man into the open, seized him, discharged their guns at him, and ordered him to surrender his farm; whether the farm has been surrendered; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this incident.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received a police report about this case. Thomas Curtin, the person referred to in the Question, is a labourer who occupies a dilapidated house while a labourer's cottage is being built for him. He has no farm. Curtin has informed the police that three disguised men visited his house, fired revolver shots in the air, and asked him to surrender the house. No arrests have been made, because Curtin states that he does not know the offenders, and no other evidence is forthcoming.

  Complaint against Belfast Policeman.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a complaint in writing was lodged by Mr. Stouppe M'Cance, a magistrate for the county of Antrim, on 28th March last, with regard to the alleged ill-treatment by a constable of the Belfast police force of a woman whom he was taking to the police station, of which Mr. M'Cance was a witness; whether Mr. M'Cance asked for an inquiry into the constable's conduct; whether an inquiry was subsequently
  76
  held without Mr. M'Cance being present; whether the constable was, in the absence of Mr. M'Cance's evidence, acquitted of blame; and whether, in view of the importance of the public being assured that any reasonable charge against the conduct of a constable will be impartially inquired into, he will order an official inquiry to be held as to the matter in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is the fact that Mr. M'Cance made a written complaint to the effect stated in the Question. No formal inquiry was held, but the Commissioner of Police obtained written statements from four persons who witnessed the woman's arrest, and these statements showed that the woman was very drunk and threw herself on the ground. All the statements, including Mr. M'Cance's written complaint, were placed before legal advisers of the Government, who decided that the case was not one in which any action should be taken.

  Tonlagee Police.
  Mr. BECKETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resotion passed on 16th June, by the Kilbride branch of the United Irish League, to the effect that a certain house in Tonlagee is open at all times for the refreshment and recreation of the police, and that, considering the brutal acts perpetrated recently by these hirelings of Dublin Castle, the people of Tonlagee are called upon to treat the owners of such houses as blacklegs and to hold no communication with them in the future; and whether, in view of the character of this resolution, he will take steps to. prevent the boycotting of the individual referred to and of the police in the execution of their public duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that a resolution to the effect stated in the Question has appeared in a local newspaper. The meeting at which the resolution purports to have been passed was held within doors, and the police have no knowledge that it was passed. The person referred

  77
  to in the resolution is not boycotted and needs no assistance from the police. If necessity should arise the police will afford full protection.

  Roscomroe Prosecution.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, after four appearances before the local magistrates, the sixteen defendants charged with unlawful assembly and cattle-driving at Roscomroe on 30th April were dismissed on Monday last; whether any and, if so, what defence was offered; and what steps will now be taken to bring the perpetrators of this act to justice.
  Answered by Mr. Birrell.)The fact; is as stated in the Question. The evidence in the case is about to be submitted to my right hon. friend the Attorney- General for Ireland, who will consider whether further proceedings should be taken.

  Kilcreggan War Office Purchase.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what were the dates on which the two valuations were made of the land at Kilcreggan purchased from the Duke of Argyll; whether they differ materially; if so, by how much; and if he will say what circumstances justified the payment of the price of £14,500 for a property of £60 annual valuation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The valuations were made on 21st March and 4th July, 1901. The difference between them was material; but I have already told my hon. friend that the amounts could not be disclosed. My hon. friend is doubtless aware of the heavy cost of arbitration proceedings, and he will therefore understand that it is far cheaper for the War Department to make the arrangement in question than to proceed to arbitration.

  Visit of the Prince of Wales to Edinburgh.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what arrange-
  78
  ments are to be made for giving their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales a cavalry escort during their stay in the capital of Scotland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, has made arrangements for a cavalry escort for their Royal Highnesses.

  Piershill Barracks.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the dates upon which the first report was made as to the sanitary condition of Piershill Barracks, and the report of the medical officer of health and the chief sanitary inspector for the city of Edinburgh; whether, subsequent to the latter report, another inquiry was made by the War Office; and, if so, has such inquiry been concluded, a report issued, and when.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The first report on the sanitary condition of Piershill Barracks was made by the sanitary engineer of the War Office and the sanitary expert of the Army Medical Advisory Board in April, 1906. A second report was made by the Director-General, Army Medical Service, in May, 1906. A conjoint inspection was made by the sanitary engineer of the War Office and the sanitary expert of the Army Medical Advisory Board on the one hand, and the medical officer of health for the borough of Edinburgh and the chief sanitary inspector, Dr. Williamson, on the other, in December, 1906, and a third report submitted by the two first-named officials. The report of the Director-General, Army Medical Service, and the report dated December, 1906, by the sanitary engineer of the War Office and the sanitary expert of the Army Medical Advisory Board, were laid before Parliament in 1906 [Cd. 2996]. There has been no subsequent inquiry later than that mentioned, viz., December, 1906.

  Undress Clothing for Soldiers.
  Mr. COWAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of an alteration in the King's Regulations whereby soldiers may be permitted

  79
  to visit the towns adjacent to their camps in an undress uniform.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no order of dress now known as "undress," its place being taken by a kharkee suit for field work and active service; this dress is not suitable for walking out. The uniform, the tunic and forage cap, now worn by the soldier when off duty outside the limits of camp is comfortable and smart, and there is no intention or necessity of making any change in existing orders.

  Army Contracts.
  Mr. COWAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the effect upon many traders of the present system of contracting for Army food supplies without public advertisement in the usual trade and other papers, he will take steps to ensure that in future such contracts shall be fully advertised, and that each separate trade shall be permitted to tender for such goods as its members are able to supply.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The periodical contracts for Army rations and supplies are advertised in trade and other papers. If, however, the Question refers to canteen contracts, it must be pointed out that these are under regimental control, and the Army Council does not propose to interfere with the arrangements made by the regiments.

  Military Canteens.
  MR. COWAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether military canteens and messes are permitted to remain open on Sundays during hours at which ordinary licensed houses are obliged to close; whether grocery bars in military camps are also permitted to open on Sundays; and, if so, whether he will take measures to oblige the contractors for, and managers of, such canteens, messes, and bars to conform to the usual civil law or custom in such matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The regimental mess is the sergeant's home, and it is not practicable to make rules as to the hours at which meals or
  80
  refreshments are to be taken by non-commissioned officers coming off duty at various times. As regards canteens, the following is the rule in the. King's Regulations, paragraph 1003:—"Generals Commanding will decide the hours during which the liquor bar may be kept open, but in no case is it to be kept open during the hours of Divine Service on Sundays. Other branches of the institute (which includes grocery bars) will be kept open during such hours as the commanding officer may determine." It is not proposed to make any change in these regulations.

  Ailsa Craig.
  Mr. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the price paid for that portion of Ailsa Craig which now belongs to the Commmissioners of Northern Lights; when and from whom that portion was purchased, and whether it was purchased under compulsory powers; whether the Commissioners have the right of quarrying for stone for commercial purposes on that portion; whether on that portion such quarrying is commercially practicable; and what are approximately the areas of that portion and of the rest of the island.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The price paid for the portion of Ailsa Craig acquired by the Northern Lights Commissioners was £1,550. It was purchased under compulsory powers from the Marquess of Ailsa in 1883. The question of the Commissioners' right to quarry for stone has not been raised, but I am informed that such quarrying is not commercially practicable. The total area of the Commissioners portion of the island is 4 acres, 3 roods, 21½ poles, with certain water rights and way leaves, and the total area of the island is believed to be between 200 and 250 acres.

  Bass Rock.
  Mr. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the price paid for that portion of the Bass Rock which now belongs to the Commissioners of Northern Lights; when and from whom that portion was purchased, and whether it was purchased under

  81
  compulsory powers; and what are approximately the areas of that portion and of the rest of the rock.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The portion of this island occupied by the Northern Lights Commissioners, which is rather less than three-quarters of an acre, with certain water rights and way leaves, is held on feu, the annual feu duty being £40. It was acquired in 1900 by agreement from Sir Walter Dalrymple. I do not know the exact area of the rest of the island; but it is, I understand, about three-quarters of a mile in circumference.

  Hyskeir Rock.
  Mr. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether Hyskeir Rock, on which a lighthouse has been erected recently by the Commissioners of Northern Lights, belonged to or had to be purchased from any private person; and, if so, when and from whom was it purchased; what was the price paid; and whether the purchase was effected under compulsory powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) Hyskeir Island was acquired by the Northern Lights Commissioners under compulsory powers from Mr. Robert Thorn in April, 1902, the total sum paid to him (in November, 1903) being £611 3s. 3d.

  Doncaster Land Tax Commissioners.
  Mr. C. NICHOLSON (Yorks, W.R., Doncaster): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any meetings of Land Tax Commissioners have been held in the Doncaster division during the present year; if so, on what date such meetings were held; whether all duly appointed Commissioners were summoned to them; and, if not, will he state why certain Commissioners were summoned and other Commissioners were not.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The clerk to the Commissioners for Doncaster borough has replied to an inquiry that the duties of Land Tax Commissioners in his division are in general so trifling that it was not considered necessary to hold separate meetings for the transaction of land tax and income tax business, and that it had not been thought worth while to put gentlemen who are not also Income
  82
  Tax Commissioners to the trouble of attending meetings at which their presence is required only for a very limited time, and for the transaction of business of a purely formal character. His action is not in conformity with the requirements of The Land Tax Commissioners Act, 1906, and I have directed that this should be pointed out to him.

  Boy Messengers in the Post Office.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the measures taken by the Postmaster-General to retain boy messengers in the service of the Post Office; and whether, seeing that the reasons against discharging boy messengers at the age of eighteen apply with greater force to the case of boy clerks discharged through no fault of their own at the age of twenty, he will take immediate action to improve the position of boy clerks, about 600 of whom are discharged annually owing to the lack of permanent posts available.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The position of boy clerks in the Civil Service is at present under consideration; and I am not able to make any statement as to the conclusion which will be arrived at.

  Inland Revenue Department and Public Holiday.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue has issued an order to the out-door staff declaring Friday the 28th instant to be a public holiday throughout the Department, that, notwithstanding, the out-door officers are required to perform their usual duties on that day; and will he consider the practicability of granting to such officers an additional day's leave at some other convenient time.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) As a general rule out-door officers are not required to perform duties on official holidays. But, when an official holiday is not also a general public holiday, excise officers are required to give such attendance as may be necessary to prevent interruption of business in warehouses and distilleries. It has not been the practice to give to the officers so attending an additional day's

  83
  leave at some other time, and, in view of the general conditions of the out-door service, it does not seem that such concession is called for.

  Rosyth.
  Mr. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the area of the property at Rosyth purchased by the Admiralty some years ago; when and from whom it was purchased; what was the total price paid; and whether the purchase was effected under compulsory powers.
  (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) The property purchased at Rosyth consists of 1,184 acres of land and 286 acres of foreshore. It was acquired in the years 1903–4 in three purchases from (1) Lord Linlithgow; (2) Mr. Newton; and (3) the Minister of Inverkeithing and Mr. Newton. The total price paid was £139,550. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Perth Postman's Accident.
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an auxiliary postman met with an accident at Perth station on the 15th instant, and that he was kept in the mail porters' office for over an hour before being taken to the hospital, owing to the fact that an ambulance could not be got and no one would take the responsibility of incurring an expense for cab fare; and whether he will issue instructions to see that such delay in cases of accident does not occur.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I find that an auxiliary postman met with an accident to his foot at Perth station on the 15th instant, and I am informed that he was assisted to the mail porter's room where first aid was rendered by a member of the railway ambulance corps. I regret to learn that some little delay occurred in getting the postman home. Instructions have been issued on the subject.

  Athenry Postman's Grievance.
  Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a postman at Athenry requiring special leave procured a duly authorised substitute, that the substitute left three
  84
  parcels undelivered through an error, that the postmaster of Athenry refused to allow the substitute to rectify his mistake, sent specially for the postman and made him deliver the parcels without pay, at the same time telling him that he was entirely responsible for any mistakes made by his substitute; and will he say whether a man is liable to punishment in the Post Office for mistakes committed by substitutes who have been passed as efficient by supervisors.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Galway Veterinary Inspector.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in view of the proposed increase in the temporary staff of the Veterinary Branch, he can state on how many days during the last six months the Department's veterinary inspector at Galway had no duty to discharge; and will he say what course he. proposes to take with reference to this sinecure appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) Owing to the very satisfactory decline in the prevalence of animal contagious diseases in the county Galway district during the present year, there were approximately seventy days during which the Department's veterinary inspector stationed at Galway was not dealing with reported outbreaks. But on these days, as on other days, he was on duty in readiness to deal with such outbreaks as might arise. The presence of an inspector at Galway continues necessary, notwithstanding the partial decline of contagious animal disease. For some time to come he will have additional duties in connection with the Sheep Dipping Order of 1907.

  Lord Chancellor's Salary.
  Mr. HERBERT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will see to it that the next time the Estimates are prepared in such a form that a portion of the Lord Chancellor's salary proportionate to the relative importance of his duties as Chair-man of the House of Lords and of his

  85
  other duties is set down under separate heads.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Acts 14 and 15 Vic, c. 83, and 15 and 16 Vic., c. 87, fix his Lordship's salary from the Consolidated Fund at £10,000, less whatever sum may be assigned to him by the House of Lords as Speaker. Any remuneration which might be given him from Votes in respect of other functions would therefore, assuming him not to be debarred by law from receiving it, have the effect of increasing pro tanto his total emoluments. I do not see my way to proposing any alteration of the present arrangement, which is of long standing and could not be changed without legislation.

  Income Tax on Loans.
  Mr. VIVIAN:To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if loans from banks negotiated through brokers, when the borrower's name is not disclosed to the bank but identified by a number, will be treated as loans made with a bank on which income tax can be repaid to the borrower, the custom with some banks being not to accept the borrower's name from the broker; will these be eligible for reclaim directly by the borrower, or must the broker reclaim and allow the borrower; is it to be understood that the Exchequer does not claim double income tax under any circumstances where interest is paid out of taxed interest, when such payments can be identified; and will returns for reduced 9d. income tax under the new Act have to give in detail every item of taxed interest paid and received, or will totals be accepted from persons in financial business.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The practice referred to in the first part of the Question is one which has so far not come under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue, and they would prefer to have a concrete case before them before they offer an opinion as to the course that should be pursued in such circumstances. The Board of Inland Revenue endeavour, so far as they can, to avoid double assessments on the same income. But it must be remembered that relief in respect of tax on payments
  86
  of interest is confined to payments of annual interest. Full particulars of all interest paid and received are now required in the case of persons claiming exemption or abatement under the existing law, and presumably the same course will have to be followed in the case of the new relief to be granted to earned incomes.

  Punjab Land Revenue.
  Mr. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state, for each district in the Punjab, the amount of land revenue assessed on it in 1855 and at each new settlement since that year, noting the districts that have been added to or taken from the Punjab Province since 1855.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Motley.) I am in communication with the Government of India regarding the preparation of a return of the land revenue assessments of the districts of the Punjab from 1855 to date, which will give the information desired by the hon. Member. I propose to lay it upon the Table.

  Indian Military Pension.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state when the actuarial report and valuation for the sixth quinquennial period under the Indian Military Service Family Pension Fund Regulations will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Motley.) The valuation and actuarial reports, with modifications in the rates of contributions under Indian Military Service Family Pension Regulations, will very shortly be sent to the Government of India with a view to their publication in the Gazette of India.

  Indian Factory Committee.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the-Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Factory Committee has been received from the Government of India; whether its recommendations will involve any legislation; and whether it is intended to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, on which the commercial interests affected will be represented, to

  87
  consider the Report before any action is determined on.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley) The Report has been received, and is being printed for presentation to Parliament. In the Resolution appointing the Committee the Government of India stated that the inquiry would be a preliminary one, and that, if it showed the existence of abuses, a representative Commission would be appointed to consider the whole subject comprehensively before any radical changes in the present factory law were made.

  Irish Pupil Teachers
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many applications have been received by the Commissioners of National Education for the position of pupil teacher or monitor from candidates who have passed, and how many passed with honours the junior or middle grade of the Intermediate Board; and how many applications have been received from candidates who intend to present themselves at this year's examinations of the Intermediate Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education have received applications for the position of pupil teacher from 150 candidates, of whom twenty-six claim to have passed with honours at intermediate examinations, and the remainder have notified their intention of attending this year's examinations. The Commissioners have not yet received from their inspectors the returns of the applications for monitorships.

  Untenanted Lands in Limerick.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners intend to give some untenanted land, that will be available in the county of Limerick, to Thomas Bridgeman, of Cunigar, Askeaton, nephew of Partick Noonan, deceased, evicted tenant, having regard to the fact that Noonan bequeathed to him Lot 13 on the Mount Shannon estate, which the inspector of the Commissioners said he was to get.
  88
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) If Thomas Bridgeman should make an application to the Estates Commissioners for a parcel of land, the Commissioners will duly consider the application, with others, when they are distributing untenanted land in county Limerick.

  Rathregan Estate, Westmeath.
  MR. SHEEHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of the Rathregan estate, Westmeath, has been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners; whether the Commissioners were aware that William Allen, a tenant on the property, sold a portion of his farm to Messrs. Wallace, of Dublin; whether the said farm is 500 acres in extent; and whether the Commissioners, having regard to the decision in the Ward case, are prepared to advance public money for the purchase of Allen's divided farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the estate referred to in the Question unless the name of the owner is furnished.

  Under Age Recruits.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that James M'Connon, aged seventeen years and five months, enlisted in the Royal Irish Fusiliers without his parents' consent; and whether, having regard to the fact that his father, Mr. T. M'Connon, of Slane, county Meath, has claimed his discharge from the Army and that the boy is anxious to be released, he will order his discharge.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) These matters are dealt with by the local military authorities in accordance with the King's Regulations, and the. Army Council does not interfere with their discretion.

  Volunteer Sergeant Instructors at Hulme Barracks, Manchester.
  Mr. CLYNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his Department has issued documents requesting sergeant instructors to Volunteers to go into the vacant married quarters at Hulme Barracks,

  89
  Manchester, instead of drawing the usual allowance and residing in private places; whether he has considered the disapproval of the instructors and the loss and inconvenience entailed to their families; and whether he can refrain from enforcing such an order or announce that it will not be made compulsory.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There are twenty-seven married soldiers' quarters available in Hulme Barracks, and there are forty families on the lodging list in Manchester. The G.O.C.'s attention has been drawn to the matter with a view to avoiding unnecessary expenditure of public funds. The whole question is still under consideration.

  German Old-age Pensions.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the Prime Minister if he will cause to be prepared and laid upon the Table as a Parliamentary Paper a memoranudm giving full particulars of the system in operation in the German Empire in regard to old-age pensions.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The main features or the German old-age pension system will be found fully described in the Board of Trade Paper, C. 9414, of 1899 (Provision for old age by Government action in certain European countries). The issue of a further memorandum on the subject would therefore, I think, be superfluous, as, although there have been some modifications in the German law since the Paper was issued in 1899, they do not affect its main principles.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Estimates for Naval Ammunition.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, the total amount provided in the Navy Estimates for 1901–2 and 1907–8, respectively, for projectiles, ammunition, torpedoes, and gun cotton.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT,): The amounts provided for the
  90
  above stores in the years specified were as follows:—1901–2, £2,696,000; 1907–8, £1,282,000. I may add that in 1901–2 the Reserves were being largely increased, and a more expensive type of armour-piercing shell was introduced. The Reserves are now complete.

  German Naval Reserves.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the German navy estimates only contain information as to the permanent force, numbering 46,936, whether the Admiralty can give any approximate estimate of the size of the German naval reserves?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am not in a position to give the desired information, as the figures of the German naval reserve are not published.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give an approximate estimate of the German naval reserve? Have not the Admiralty that information?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I must decline to answer any Question as to the nature of information possessed by the Admiralty.

  Sirocco Works, Belfast.
  Mr. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that the firm of Davidson and Company, Limited, Sirocco Works, Belfast, in addition to refusing a number of their workmen the right to combine in legal organisation, employ labourers in their fan department at wages ranging from 15s. to 25s. per week upon boilermakers' work, in the stove-fitting department to do fitters' work at wages from 25s. to 27s. per week, and a number of this class of workmen are doing the work of sheet-metal workers at wages varying from 17s. to 25s. per week; whether the name of this firm remains on the Admiralty list as a contractor to His Majesty's Government; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take, if any, to see that the Fair Wages Resolution of the House is observed.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Admiralty have no information on the points mentioned in the Question, and could only intervene in case of a breach of the Fair Wages-

  91
  Resolution in the execution of an Admiralty contract. If the hon. Member brings any such breach to my notice, inquiry will at once be instituted.
  *MR. LEIF JONES: Are we to understand that it is only if a contractor violates the clause in respect of a particular Government contract that the Admiralty can interfere; that no regard is paid to the general rate of wages paid by the firm?
  MR. LAMBERT: I can only say if the hon. Member has any facts to bring to my notice they will be considered.

  Lord Rayleigh's Cordite Committee.
  Mr. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the date of the first sitting of Lord Rayleigh's Cordite Committee; and what proportion of the estimated £200,000 to be spent this year on refrigerating machinery for the magazines is for the ships already built, which have been officially stated to number fifty-one battleships, twenty-eight armoured cruisers, and seventy-six un-armoured cruisers.
  MR. LAMBERT: The date asked for was 4th April, 1907. Of the total of £200,000, £165,700 is the estimated sum required for ships already built.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Member tell the House what was the first date on which the Admiralty received information that Kynochs were adding mercuric chloride.?
  MR. LAMBERT: I am afraid that I cannot bear the date in mind.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the hon. Member aware that the discovery was made in December, and this Committee was only -appointed in April?
  MR. LAMBERT: If the hon. Member knows that, why does he ask me for the information?

  Cocanada Assault Case.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the action of Major Kemp, local district surgeon at Cocanada, who assaulted and severely injured a Madhwa student, and
  92
  subsequently dragged him to the police station, handing him over to arrest for having said Bande Mataram on the high road; whether the student on regaining consciousness and asking for medical help was refused; whether as a result of this conduct, the excited people attacked the English club, leaving it in ruins: whether the district magistrate was also attacked, and that serious unrest is apprehended, sixty reserve police having to be sent from Rajahmundry; and, if so, what steps will be taken to allay the unrest and in the matter of Major Kemp's action.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): I have seen a Report from the district magistrate to the effect that a boy who shouted Bande Mataram and put out his tongue at Captain Kemp was chastised by that officer. I am not aware that the boy was ever unconscious, and it is not the case that medical assistance was refused, for, at the request of his father, the assistant surgeon was sent to see him. In the attempt to wreck the English club the district magistrate was injured while endeavouring to restore order. Fifty-two persons have been sent up for trial, and additional police have been stationed at Coconada. So far as I am aware no further special measures are thought necessary.

  Transvaal Loan.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, what are the differentiating circumstances which have induced His Majesty's Government to provide the Imperial guarantee to the proposed £5,000,000 Transvaal loan, whereas no such guarantee is to be given in the case of the loan of £2,000,000 advertised to be issued by the Colony of Natal; and whether, in the case of Natal any such guarantee has ever been given.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): I see no advantage in attempting to justify the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the Transvaal Loan by Question and Answer across the House. The. opportunities for its discussion afforded by the necessary Loan Bill will enable me to explain very fully to the House the reasons for the decision which has been taken. No such

  93
  guarantee has ever been given to Natal. But owing to the invasion of Natal the Colonial Revenue in 1899 dropped heavily and the Bank of England advanced money to Natal under an informal guarantee. No application to Parliament was thought necessary.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Loan Bill is likely to come on for discussion?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): Not at present.

  Infringement of British Copyrights in the Far East.
  Mr. McCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs, if he can state whether British books are being re-published in Tokio and printed there by photo type; whether these books are being sold in China bearing the impress printed in Edinburgh; and, if so, can he take any steps to remedy this injustice.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): No information has been received in regard to the facts referred to in the first two Questions, but inquiry will be made at Tokio. We have no copyright agreement with China, nor is she a party to the Convention for the creation of an International Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Japan is a party to that Convention, and any one whose rights under that Convention are infringed can take proceedings in the Japanese Courts.

  Anglo-Russian Agreement.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any negotiations are still in progress with the Russian Government with respect to the conclusion of an Anglo-Russian agreement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, Sir.

  Newfoundland Fisheries.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an understanding has yet been arrived at with the United States Govern-
  94
  ment respecting the Newfoundland fisheries question.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative. Negotiations are proceeding.

  Whangpo Conservancy Dredging Tenders.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that for the dredging work to be carried out by the Whangpo Conservancy at Shanghai no British firms were asked to tender, although estimates were invited from French, German, and Dutch firms, and the work was given to a Dutch syndicate whose tender was the highest; whether, by the terms of the Conservancy Convention of 1905, all work was to be submitted to public tender; and whether he is aware of the reasons for the exclusion of British firms from tendering for this work.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It is a fact that by the terms of the Whangpo Conservancy Arrangements of 1905 all work has to be submitted to public tender; and I am not aware that in the present case these terms have been departed from. Dutch, French, German, and Japanese firms competed for the first contract for the building of a jetty and the dredging of the main channel; but no tender, I am informed, was forthcoming from the United Kingdom, though I have heard no reason given for this. Inquiry will be made.

  Persia —Surrender of the Shah's Brother.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the Salar-ed-Dowleh, brother of the Shah, has taken refuge in the British Consulate at Kirmanshah, claiming asylum for himself and his family; and, if so, what course His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Tehran has reported that the Salar-ed-Dowleh, who had arrived at the British Consulate at Kermanshah with one follower, has now been handed over to the Governor of Hamadan on the receipt by His Majesty's Minister of a formal assurance as to his safety, given by the Persian Government.

  The Sinking Fund.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is now his intention to devote Sinking Fund moneys to the purchase of Consols, seeing that the latter are the sole leaders of the market and that the markets wholly depend on them; and whether the reduction of floating debt is as advantageous as a purchase of Consols for the Sinking Fund at under 84.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.): I do not think it is in the public interest to announce before hand the specific application of Sinking Fund moneys, but the hon. Member may be assured that the comparative advantages of the various securities to which the Sinking Fund can be applied will be carefully considered on each occasion.

  Jamaica Loan Bill
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Jamaica Loan Bill will be introduced this session; and, if so, whether he can give the date.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is proposed to take power in the Public Works Loans Bill of this session to make the loan to Jamaica out of the Local Loans Fund. I cannot at present specify the date on which the Bill will be introduced.
  LORD BALCARRES: Is it proposed to throw this sum as well as the million for the Transvaal on the market?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not going on the market for this.

  Inspection of Workshops of Charitable Institutions.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many workplaces in the occupation of charitable institutions within the metropolitan area are entered on the lists of workshops and factories kept by the Factory Department; and what is the principal work carried on in them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): According to the Inspectors' Reports thirteen factories, eighteen workshops, and six laundries in the metropolitan area are entered on the district registers as being conducted by religious or charitable institutions. The work carried on in these thirty-one institutions (not counting the six laundries) is the making of clothing, firewood cutting, letterpress printing, and basket making.

  Sweated Industries.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the approximate number of persons employed in the sweated and other trades to which the statutory orders as to particulars of wages, etc., applied during 1906, or the number of workshops and factories subject to the provisions of those orders, and the number of firms convicted for infringement of the particulars section in the same period.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The total number of factories and workshops to which the provisions as to particulars apply is 24,661, of which 9,624 are textile. The total number of persons employed in such works, including both piece and time workers, is according to the latest available figures a little over 1,500,000, of which 1,000,000 are textile workers. I have no trustworthy figures as to the number of outworkers who have been brought under the provisions in question. The number of persons convicted in 1906 of infringements of the particulars section and orders was seventeen.

  Saturday Factory Labour in Leeds.
  MR, J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, owing to the habitual employment of lads by a clothing firm in Leeds after. 4 p.m. on Saturdays, complaint was made to the factory inspector's office; that the factory inspector replied that he had visited the firm at 4.25 p.m. on the following Saturday and had discovered lads being employed, but that, as he had been informed that they had had one hour for dinner, he did not consider that the legal time had been exceeded; whether complaint

  97
  was thereupon made to the Home Office, and, after the lapse of a month, a reply was sent that the firm had been cautioned and that no further steps were to be taken; and whether he will state why no legal proceedings were taken against the firm.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The facts of the ease are these. The complaint received by the inspector did not state that the boys wore habitually employed after 4 on Saturday, but that the complainant had heard that the firm would be working their boys till 4.30 on the following day, that is, the day on which the letter was received. The inspector visited the promises the same afternoon at 4.30, and met seven boys coming downstairs with their coats on. He did not see them at work, but they told him they had only just finished. The inspector in his reply to the complainant did not say that the legal time had not been exceeded, but while stating that the boys had evidently been working for a short time after 4, mentioned that as the boys had had an hour for dinner instead of the half hour required on Saturdays, the total number of hours of work allowed on Saturday had not been exceeded. The ordinary practice at this factory is for the boys to leave off at 1 p.m. on Saturday although the law allows them to be employed until 4 p.m., and the inspector has reason to believe that only once before this year had they worked after 1 p.m. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that the firm bear an excellent character, that they had never been warned or prosecuted before, and that there was nothing to show that overtime was habitual, the superintending inspector considered that the case would be sufficiently met by a caution. On the case being brought to my notice I made full inquiry, and found no reason to disagree with the view of the superintending inspector.
  MR. CROOKS: Has the firm been cautioned?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  Edalji Case.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say whether the refusal of compensation in
  98
  the Edalji case has been influenced to any degree by reason of certain anonymous letters in the case; and, if so, has anybody been tried or indicted for writing these letters or are proceedings contemplated.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the statements contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament in connection with the ease. As regards the second part, the anonymous letters formed part of the case submitted to the jury in the trial of Mr. Edalji. So far as I know, no further proceedings are contemplated against him or anyone else in connection with the letters.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Were the letters referred to those Edalji was supposed to be concerned in, or the letters which were written while he was in prison?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That Question should be addressed to the hon. Member who put the Question down.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Is Edalji being thus treated because he is not an Englishman?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Kynoch's Cordite.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date was the discovery made of the presence of mercuric chloride in the cordite at Kynoch's magazine, near Cardiff, resulting in the seizure of 23,000 pounds; and whether he can state when the appeal trial of Kynoch, Limited, in reference to the addition of mercuric chloride to some blasting gelatine, is likely to be heard.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The 23,000 pounds of explosives which were seized at Mwyndwy Bach Farm, Glamorganshire, in December, 1906, was not cordite, but exclusively blasting explosives. The firm were suspected of using a masking agent in the summer of 1906, but it was not until just before the seizure that the Inspectors were in a position to prove the presence of mercury in blasting explosives. The case which Quarter Sessions agreed to state on the 24th April

  99
  has only been drafted by the appellants within the last few days. This delay on their part makes it most unlikely that the case will be heard until after the Vacation.

  Factory Accident Reports.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the Treasury versus the Dorset Hygienic Steam Laundry Company; whether the accident from which Edith Coles was suffering, and for the treatment of which after a period of eighteen days a doctor was called in, was one which should have been reported or not; and whether this accident would have been reportable under the law which was in force up to 1st January, 1907.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, the circumstances of this case, which was a prosecution on a number of charges by the Factory Inspector of the district, have been brought to my notice. One of the charges was for failure to report the accident referred to in the question. The defence was that the accident had not prevented the girl being employed on her ordinary work, which was alleged to be sorting, dusting, and doing odd jobs. The justices accepted the version put forward by the defence and dismissed the charge. The position would have been the same under the law in force up to the 1st January last as under the present law.

  Submarine Bell Signals.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state if the Zeeland Steam Navigation Company, whose steamers ply between Flushing and Queen borough, have been negotiating with the British Government with a view to supplying their vessels with submarine bell signals; will he say when the Government were first approached in this matter; at whose expense the necessary apparatus was to have been installed; and whether this system of signalling is now in operation at the ports mentioned with or without the approval of the Government.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): There have been
  100
  no negotiations on this subject between the Zeeland Steamship Company and the Board of Trade, but I am informed by the Trinity House that in a letter, dated 2nd September, 1905, the Company asked them to fit submarine bell signals on certain lightships, and that, in August, 1906, the company offered to instal the apparatus on board the Tongue Lightship free of cost, and to bear all expenses for managing the apparatus until the Trinity House decided either to take it over or to remove it. The Elder Brethren did not feel able to accept the offer, pending a decision as to the funds out of which the cost of maintenance of such apparatus should be defrayed. They are, however, favourably impressed with the results of their own experiments and the question of expense has been under consideration by the Board of Trade, the Advisory Committee, and the Treasury. The Treasury hold that any such expenditure must fall on the General Lighthouse Fund, and in view of the large number of communications which the Board of Trade has received from ship owners and others in favour of the system since the meeting of the Advisory Committee it is proposed again to consult them on the matter. I am informed that the North Hinder Lightvessel has been fitted with a submarine bell, but I have no information of the establishment of such signals either at Queenborough or at Flushing.

  Secondary School Regulations.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when the new regulations for secondary schools will be issued.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouth, N.): These Regulations will, I hope, be issued early next week.

  Postal Servants and the Auxiliary Forces.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what arrangements, if any, are made between the postal and military authorities whereby postal officials belonging to His Majesty's Auxiliary Forces obtain facilities for attending the annual trainings.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Facilities are given, as far as possible, to Post Office servants, who are members of His

  101
  Majesty's Auxiliary Forces, to attend he annual periods of training. The application of the regulations to individual cases depends upon the conditions existing at the particular offices. It is only when the exigencies of the Post Office Service require it that permission to attend the training is withheld.
  MR. SLOAN: Are there not officials at the present time in the Post Office who have had no training whatever?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We do our best to grant leave to all officers who apply.

  Press Telegrams.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether ho can give any approximate estimate of the annual loss incurred by the Post Office on Press telegrams.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Careful calculations of the annnal expenditure properly chargeable to Press telegrams are being made, but are not yet completed. But taking the difference between the revenue derived from Press messages, and the estimated annual expenses involved (apart from interest on capital), the loss is considerable and is put at about a quarter of a million sterling.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the rate of 2d. per hundred words for repeat Press messages was originally intended to apply to cases where the same message was: directed to different addresses in the same town, and consequently only involved one electrical transmission; whether the practice has grown up of conceding the same rate to repeat messages handed in at one office, even though; they may have to be telegraphed to a; number of different towns; and, if so, under what authority this extended concession was granted.
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It was not the original intention of the Act to limit the 2d. rate in the way suggested by the hon. Member, and there has been no modification of the system of charge. This is made clear not only by the words of the Telegraph Act of 1868, but also by
  102
  the proceedings of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which considered the Bill. I might add that the practice is opposed to the views of the Post Office as expressed at the time.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether the whole of the public did not gain by the cheapness of the Press messages.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is a matter of opinion.
  MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield): Are these privileges still to be given to the "Daily Liar "?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: They are given under an Act of Parliament, and I have no control over the matter unless the House chooses to repeal the Act.

  Rules in Lunacy.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is proposed to amend the rules in lunacy to allow of the appearance before him of the representative of the local authority in eases where an application is made to deal with the estate of a patient in a county asylum; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which a sum of only £30 a year was recently allowed by the Master in Lunacy in respect of the maintenance of a lunatic named Samuel Waters, at the London County Asylum, Claybury, whose estate approximates to £900, the said lunatic having no dependents, and the cost to the ratepayers of his maintenance and lodging at the asylum amounting to about.£39 a year; and whether he will consider the advisability of giving an opportunity for the asylum authorities to appeal against such an order.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): The Master in Lunacy heard in this case the representatives both of the London County Council to whom the asylum belongs and of the guardians. The allowance of £30 a year was made at their suggestion. If it is proposed to increase this a fresh application should be made to the Master, or an Appeal, which he is quite willing to allow, brought from his decision.

  Ballina Fairs Patent.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney. General for Ireland whether the patent granting new fairs at Ballina, county Mayo, on the application of the urban district council, has been prepared; and will he cause the matter to have early attention, so that the holding of the new fairs may begin as soon as possible.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL For IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): The Lord-Lieutenant's fiat for the preparation of the letters patent in this case has been issued, and the patent will, it is hoped, be ready at an early date.

  Mr. Larkin, JP. of Ballinasloe.
  MR. BECKETT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney- General for Ireland whether Mr. Larkin, J.P., of Ballinasloe, has yet replied to the two letters from the Lord Chancellor, addressed to him on 18th May and 30th May, warning him of the consequences of attending as a magistrate at any petty sessions outside the limits of his district; what was the nature of Mr. Larkin's reply, if any, received before 5th June; and, in the event of no reply having reached the Lord Chancellor, what steps have been taken to enforce obedience with his Lordship's directions.
  MR. CHERRY: The Lord Chancellor informs me that on the 4th instant he received from Mr. Larkin a written undertaking that he would not exceed the limits of his jurisdiction a san ex-officio magistrate. This Answer applies to the similar Question of the hon. Member for South Antrim, which is addressed to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

  Roscrea Agrarian Disturbances.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what steps, if any, he proposes to take with reference to the persons alleged to be implicated in the agrarian disturbances; at Roscrea; and whether, having regard to the action of the local justices, he proposes to proceed in this case by indictment at the assizes.
  MR. CHERRY: The evidence in this case is to be submitted to me, and I shall
  104
  then consider the question whether further proceedings are to be taken.
  This Question had appealed on the Paper without any name attached to it.
  MR. DELANYasked if it was in order for Questions to appear on the Paper anonymously.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It was not intended to be anonymous.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to hand in a typewritten Question without putting any name to it? It has occurred more than once, and typewritten Questions had been handed round these benches and put down, and then some hon. Member has assumed the paternity at the proper time.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This Question was not typewritten. It sometimes happens that in the hurry of the moment an hon. Gentleman hands in a Question and omits to attach his name to it. Such Questions are bound to appear, and it is only when they do so that the hon. Member discovers his omission.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it right for the clerks to receive a Question without the name? Does not every Question on the Paper have to be vouched for by the clerks?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member himself would be the first to blame the clerks if they did not put his Question or notice in the Votes and Proceedings under such circumstances.
  MR. SWIFT MACNKILL: I never make the mistake. I want to know as a point of order if it is proper for the clerks to accept a Question without knowing who is the author?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Answer is in the affirmative.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Is it not the duty of the clerks to see that the name is attached?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Certainly, but sometimes an hon. Member is slightly impatient, and goes away before the clerk has had time to notice the omission.

  Marquess of Ely's Fermanagh Estate.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that arrangements for the sale of the Fermanagh estate of the Marquess of Ely were made very shortly after the passing of the Purchase Act of 1903, but could not be proceeded with owing to the decision of Mr. Justice Ross that Lord Ely would not be entitled to the bonds owing to a defect in the Act; that the sale thus lost priority, as so many estates came in before the passing of the Amending Act in 1904; and if a fresh arrangement for sale were now made would the Estates Commissioners be prepared to deal promptly with the estate, so as to save the tenants in some degree from the loss caused by the delay.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY For IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate are at present before them. If such proceedings should be instituted, the Commissioners would duly consider any application to expedite the sale which might be made.

  Borisokane District Council.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that three gentlemen, Messrs. John Flannery, Stephen Liffey, and Hugh Delaney, members of the Borisokane Rural District Council, have been summoned to the next petty sessions in the district for a surcharge of £9 5s. 4d., being the amount of a bill of costs paid in connection with the Labourers' Acts; is he aware that the auditor made the surcharge on the grounds that the bill of costs in question was not produced, the same not having been returned by the taxing master; and whether, seeing that the taxing master's certificate was produced at the audit and ignored by the auditor, he will cause the Local Government Board to stay proceedings whilst full inquiries are made into this transaction, and thus save further expense and confusion in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The facts are stated in the Question with substantial accuracy,
  106
  except that the persons surcharged gave, in their appeal to the Local Government Board, quite a different reason for their failure to produce the bill of costs, which was a necessary voucher for the payment. In their appeal they stated that the council were unable to procure the bill of costs from the solicitors who represented them at the taxation. The Local Government Board upheld the surcharge, as it would be quite irregular to allow the payment to pass without the production of the necessary vouchers.

  Mr. Reddy, J.P., M. P.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. A. H. Burnett, at a meeting at Banagher on 16th June, was denounced by the honourable Member for King's County, Birr Division, and that he advised the people to make Burnett sell certain lands and to make him shiver in his shoes; if the Lord Chancellor has received a complaint against the honourable Member in this connection as a justice of the peace, and if the Government have received reports thereon from the local police; and what action will be taken.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been called to this matter and it is now under his consideration.

  Mr. Larkin, J.P.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Mr. Larkin, J.P., who has been cautioned by the Lord Chancellor, was at one time under police surveillance with a view to extradition to the United States for an offence committed there, and that this man was also convicted at the assizes for an offence committed in Ireland; and if the Government propose to continue this man in the commission of the peace.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Larkin is a justice of the peace, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1898, by virtue of his chairmanship of a rural district council. The Government have no information that Mr. Larkin is under any disqualification by reason of his having been convicted of a criminal offence. He was not extradited to the United States for any offence
  MR. MOORE: Was Mr. Larkin under police surveillance with a view to extradition?
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not know.
  MR. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member likes.

  Irish Land Problem.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the prevalence of disappointment in Ireland among young people, who in the absence of other industries must get land or emigrate, at the failure of the Land Act of 1903 to make the evicted, untenanted, and non-residential lands available for them; and, seeing that these are self-reliant people desiring to practice agriculture and to pay the full value of the land, while regarding their claim as one for restitution, has he considered the danger of leaving them longer to their own resources without hope from Parliament, or will he, by undertaking legislation on this subject for the whole of Ireland next session, allay the disappointment and furnish a reason to those who counsel continued forbearance.
  I beg also to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the losses reported by the Treasury as resulting from the working of the Land Act of 1903, and now to be made good by Irish ratepayers, to the individual losses ignored by the Treasury, though aggregating a larger total, and to the fact that, owing to the abolition of inspection, vendors as a rule fix the prices and bonus they are to be paid, with the result that the cost of land, while stationary in Great Britain, has increased by 68½ per cent. in Ireland, and the average price of a £100 holding has risen from £3,017 to £4,897, being £1,880 more than the Land Commission would, after inspection under previous Purchase Acts, have certified the holding to be security for; and whether legislation will be introduced next session to arrest this growing danger.
  MR. BIRRELL: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer these two Questions. As regards the first Question, I would remind the hon. Member that the
  108
  problem of obtaining land for the purpose of bettering the condition of the people is engaging the attention of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland, and I have already announced that it is the intention of the Government to introduce amending legislation after they have had the advantage of studying the Report of that Commission. In the second Question the hon. Member renews a question which ho has repeatedly raised before. The enactment that advances shall be made without inspection for security in cases which come within the zones is one of the main provisions of the Act of 1903. The Government are carefully watching the operation of the Act in this and other respects in order to decide whether amending legislation may be necessary. I cannot at present make any more definite statement on the subject.
  MR. MOORE: Does the forbearance referred to in the Question consist in removing cattle from Westmeath to Wicklow and Kildare?
  MR. FLAVIN: Where is Moore's bull?

  Irish Public Appointments.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that prior to the Local Government Act, 1898, the medical appointments in the North and South Dublin Unions were held by an equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics, and that since the passing of that Act every vacancy occurring in the medical offices has been filled by a Roman Catholic; and if the Government will take steps to secure fair treatment for Protestants.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware whether the facts are as stated in the Question. The Local Government Board have no information as to the religious belief of medical officers of unions whether appointed before or since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898. In any event, the matter is not one in which the Government have power to interfere.
  MR. MEEHAN: Is it not the ease that before the passing of the Act of 1898 the ninety-eight medical appointments for Ireland

  109
  were almost exclusively held by Protestants?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice had better be given of the Question.
  MR. BIRRELL: A good many things go on in Ireland of which I am not aware.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the information?
  MR. BIRRELL: I should be sorry to seek official information as to anybody's belief.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Consider the difference in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my Question and to the—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MEEHAN: Was not the object of the Act of 1898 to give the majority of the people of Ireland a fair proportion of the appointments?
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is open to anyone to form his own judgment as to the object of Parliament.
  MR. DELANY: Is it not the case that in the Queen's County thirty-four out of thirty-five public appointments were held by Protestants before 1898?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.
  MR. FLAVIN: Was not the Act passed by the Unionist Government?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  Irish Grazing Disputes.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a joint statement by six grazing farmers that, in compliance with the wishes of the several branches of the United Irish League in the neighbourhood, they had withdrawn their cattle from the ranches in the district: and whether, in view of the fact that the law of the land has been to a large extent supplanted by the law of the United Irish League in this particular district,
  110
  he will take more energetic steps than he has done in the past to prevent persons being coerced from doing what they have a legal right to do.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that a letter to the effect stated, purporting to be signed by six persons at Mohill, has appeared in a Roscommon newspaper. The police have no evidence that these persons have been intimidated or coerced into surrendering their grazing farms. I have repeatedly stated that the police have given, and will continue to give, all possible protection to the holders of grazing farms and all other persons in the exercise of their legal rights.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any cause for the surrender of farms in the west of Ireland except the intimidation of the United Irish League.
  MR. BIRRELL: There may be a desire to promote the peace of the country.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: If that is a sample—
  *THE SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is not entitled to argue an Answer, He can only ask for information.

  Mr. Flanagan's Conviction.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in an application to quash an order of certain justices of county Clare, by which Mr. Flanagan was sentenced to a month's imprisonment in default of payment of certain fines for having acted as chairman of Corofin District Council when ho had no right to do so, owing to his having been convicted and sentenced to a term of hard labour, Chief Baron Palles said that in asking them to quash the conviction they were asked to do a monstrous act of injustice to which he and his brother Judge could not yield, and the Court refused the application with costs; and, seeing that within a few days Flanagan was unconditionally released, whether it is to be understood that in future fines and penalties inflicted for breaking the law with reference to unauthorised persons acting as district councillors will be remitted.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that the Lord Chief Baron's observations quoted in the Question had reference to one particular ground put forward for quashing the conviction, namely, that one of the convicting magistrates was biased and therefore not qualified to act. The Court held that the conviction was valid. The Lords Justices subsequently ordered Mr. Flanagan's release. He had then suffered imprisonment for five weeks. The sentence of imprisonment amounted to four months, and not one as stated in the Question.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it the intention of the Government in all cases of imprisonment for agrarian offences to cut down the sentences by three-quarters?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman refer me to a single case—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: As this is a reflection on Mr. Flanagan, will the right hon. Gentleman say if he was not convicted and sentenced to hard labour for a purely political offence under the Crimes Act which does not prevail in England?
  MR. BIRRELL: He was convicted under what the hon. Member calls the Crimes Act.

  Conviction of a Clontarf Publican.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if he will state what course he will take in view of the action of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Magistrate in fining, on a private prosecution, a Clontarf publican for opening on Sunday, and if the Attorney-General directed the police to prosecute in this matter.
  MR. CHERRY: It is not my intention to interfere in this matter at all. It was a private prosecution, brought, I understand, by some advocates of the Temperance Party, who secured a conviction.
  MR. MOONEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say they had no authority from him?
  MR. CHERRY: The prosecution was a private prosecution.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a fact that during the discussion of the Sunday Closing Bill last year, it was understood by general agreement that Clontarf should be regarded as part of the City of Dublin under the Act, being part of the municipality of Dublin?
  MR. CHERRY: I understand that is so, and I believe that the intention of the Act was as stated, and that was one of the reasons why I directed the police not to prosecute. The police had nothing to do with it.
  MR. MOONEYasked if immediate steps would be taken to see that this mistake was remedied, and prevent futher prosecutions.
  MR. CHERRY: It is not for me to promise legislation on the part of the Government.

  Belfast Strike.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can inform the House under what circumstances the forces of the Crown supplied with bail cartridges were employed yesterday in Belfast in clearing the streets of trade union pickets, whether the Riot Act was read, and what is the state of affairs this morning.
  MR. BIRRELL: The military are being employed in Belfast upon the representation of the Lord Mayor and the local civil authority that military assistance was absolutely necessary in order to secure peace for that great city. The military formed cordons across the streets for the purpose of keeping back the people who were likely to interfere or intimidate imported labourers. So far as the Government know, no pickets have been interfered with. It was simply in the interests of the public peace that any man was kept outside the cordon. I have no information as to the Riot Act being read. My information is that peace has been preserved, and there is no occasion for alarm.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether there was any truth in the telegram which he handed to the right hon. Gentleman last night, alleging that pickets had been interfered with. The telegram was sent by an official of the trade union.
  MR. BIRRELL: It was upon the basis of that telegram that I obtained the information I have given to the House.
  MR. MOORE: Has it become necessary to resort to military power in Belfast because every available constable has been drafted into the west of Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows more about the business even than I do, and it is not very desirable to introduce into Belfast constables from other parts of Ireland. All persons who are acquainted with that city know that that is not the best way to keep peace.
  MR. SLOANasked whether it was not the fact that there was no riot at all.
  MR. BIRRELL: I believe that is so. The local civil authority, having regard to the position of affairs, thought it desirable that the civil force should be rein forced, and it was on their responsibility that this request was made.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: These soldiers were supplied with ball cartridge. In view of the reasons for calling out these troops was it necessary to do that?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think that is the visual practice.
  *MR. SHACKLETONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that negotiations were going on to settle this strike, that the smaller companies had agreed to meet the men's representatives, but that the larger companies would not agree, and that that was the cause of the unrest.
  MR. BIRRELL: That is no part of my responsibility in the matter.
  MR. O'GRADY: Can the military be supplied with ball cartridge
  114
  until the Riot Act is read? [Cries of "No."]
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Teachers' Salaries.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the average salaries of principal men teachers in Scotland is £180 (with occupation of houses free of rent in 1,592 cases) as against £105 in Ireland; of principal women teachers in Scotland is £92 (with occupation of houses free of rent in 523 cases), as against £85 in Ireland; of assistant men teachers in Scotland £124, as against £74 in Ireland; of assistant women teachers in Scotland £77, as against £58 in Ireland; whether he can give any explanation of the differences of over fifty per cent. in payments for the same class of work; and what steps, if any, the Government intend to adopt to pay the national school teachers of Ireland a fair remuneration for their services.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): I am not in a position to say whether the figures in the Question are accurate or not; but in any case they cannot afford a basis for a true comparison between the two countries. The proportion of principal teachers to the whole number of teachers is much larger in Ireland than in Scotland; and the average number of children in attendance for each principal teacher is more than four times as great in Scotland as in Ireland. I may add that the grant from the Exchequer per child in average attendance is considerably higher in Ireland than in Scotland. I am not able to suggest any increase in the provision now made.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I may say I got my figures from the Ministers of the Departments concerned.

  Loans under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say whether, when introducing a clause in the Public Works Loans Bill of this year dealing with the question of outstanding loans under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts, he will make it apply to loans given to farmers in Ireland

  115
  for the purpose of building hay-sheds on their farms and have it retospective.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. The case of the Labourers' Act loans is exceptional in some respects. I do not propose to interfere with the conditions of other outstanding loans.

  Ireland and Indirect Taxation.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if

  Great Britain.

  Ireland.

  Direct.

  Indirect.

  Direct.

  Indirect.

  1902–3

  53·9 p.c.

  46·1 p.c.

  26·6 p.c.

  73·4 p.c.

  1903–4

  50·6 p.c.

  49·4 p.c.

  27·8 p.c.

  72·2 p.c.

  1904–5

  50·8 p.c.

  49·2 p.c.

  27·4 p.c.

  72 ·6 p.c.

  1905–6

  51·7 p.c.

  48·3 p.c.

  26·7 p.c.

  73·3 p.c.

  1906–7

  52·8 p.c.

  47·2 p.c.

  27·9 p.c.

  72·1 p.c.

  The calculations involve a detailed and somewhat lengthy analysis of the yield of each item of Revenue year by year, and I have not had the figures worked out for the whole of the ten years asked for. I will, however, obtain them, if the hon. Member wishes. Particulars are not available to determine on the same lines the proportions of direct and indirect taxation in Great Britain and Ireland respectively in the years between 1807 and 1817. But more than 87 per cent. of the Irish Tax Revenue during that period was raised by duties of Customs and Excise. The first year for which figures are available is 1819–20. In that year, the proportions were: Great Britain, direct taxes 30·4 per cent., indirect taxes, 69·6 per cent.; Ireland, direct taxes, 21·8 per cent., indirect taxes, 78·2 per cent.

  Irish Financial Relations.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the fact that the finding of the Financial Relations Commission, 1894–6, has never been seriously disputed, that the Report, signed by all the Commissioners, declared the tax revenue
  116
  he will state what has been the proportion of direct to indirect taxation for the ten years last past in Ireland and in Great Britain, and also for the years 1807–17, or, if not available, for the earliest ten years after the Union.
  MR. ASQUITH: The proportions during the last five years have been:—
  of Ireland to be about one-eleventh of that of Great Britain, while the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth, and that the injustice admitted to exist in 1896 has been aggravated by the increase of taxation, he will take steps to redeem the pledge given by him in the House on 1st May, 1906, that he intended seriously, with the best will in the world, to investigate the whole of this expenditure and see how far it was possible to adjust on a fairer basis what lie admitted was the unsatisfactory and inequitable financial relations between the two portions of the kingdom. The hon. Member in putting the Question asked leave to explain that the first part of the Question was a quotation from the Report of the Financial Relations Commission, and the last part from a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  *MR. SPEAKER: In that case, it probably ought not to be put at all, as quotations are not admitted.
  MR. KETTLE: said he was a new Member and unaware of. the practice.

  117
  As the inverted commas were not given, perhaps the Question might be considered in order.
  MR. ASQUITH: The tax revenue of Ireland—which was declared by the Royal Commission in 1896 to be about one-eleventh of the tax revenue of Great Britain—amounted in 1905–6 to less than one-fourteenth of the tax revenue of Great Britain. So it is not correct to say that the increase of taxation since 1896 has altered the proportion to the disadvantage of Ireland. The whole question has received and is receiving careful consideration from my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary and myself.
  MR. KETTLEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take any steps to reform this system of colossal and automatic theft.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he thought the hon. Member was not quite justified in those very resounding epithets. The whole question was receiving careful consideration.
  MR. BYLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that not only were the Irish people smarting under a sense of injustice from excessive taxation, but that the English people also felt the shame of accepting an excessive contribution from the Cinderella of the Empire. Would not the right hon. Gentleman say something more definite?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have already said it is receiving careful, and I hope sympathetic, consideration.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked the right hon. Gentleman whether any poor man paid in Ireland a higher rate of taxation than in England.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.:

  Loans to the Irish Land Purchase Fund.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the temporary loans made from sums in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners for the purposes of the Irish Land Purchase Fund have been made out of cash balances in their hands available for investment; if not, out of
  118
  what funds; what is the total amount of the temporary loans so made, and for how long have they been made, and at what rates of interest; whether seeing that he has stated that there will be no further issue of 2¾ per cent. stock for Irish land purchase before the 31st December next, any further temporary loans will be made by the National Debt Commissioners in the meantime; and whether the loans already made, or to be made, will be continued until a further issue of Land Stock.
  MR. ASQUITH: The temporary loans to the Irish Land Purchase Fund have been made out of cash balances in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners available for investment, and at present amount to £1,020,000. The loans extend over the period from 7th May, 1907, to date, and will be redeemed periodically by the creation of an equivalent amount of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. stock in favour of the National Debt Commissioners. Pending the creation of stock, which will be notified from time to time in the Gazette, interest is payable at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. It is intended to adopt the same system for the remainder of the calendar year.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: If these advances had not been made would not these cash balances have fallen into the Sinking Fund?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is only another form of investment.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: Is it a legitimate operation to take money from the Sinking Fund for this purpose.
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a matter of opinion.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: I want the right hon. Gentleman's opinion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask that.

  National School Teachers' Insurance against Accident.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can yet state what determination the Treasury have arrived at with a view to enabling the Commissioners of National Education

  119
  in Ireland to indemnify their managers against accidents suffered by national school teachers.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It has been decided that the Treasury cannot assume any liability for injuries sustained by national school teachers, who are appointed by, and under the control of, the local managers and are not in the employment of the State.

  Irish Taxation.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount of Ireland's contribution to tax revenue for each year from 1897 to 1907; what proportion did the contribution of Ireland bear to that of Great Britain; and, if the contribution of Ireland had been based on the unanimous finding of the Financial Relations Commission, 1894–6 (i.e., limited to one-twentieth of the tax revenue raised in Great Britain), what would have been the amounts for the years in question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: As the reply to this Question includes a good many figures I will cause it to be circulated with the Votes,

  Swine Fever in Ireland.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, can he give the actual date and port of importation of the one case of alleged swine fever from Ireland during the last three years; was this animal passed as free from disease by veterinary inspectors before being exported from Ireland; and can he state by what officer at the English port this case was alleged to be one of swine fever.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,): The animal in question was imported at Milford on 21st November, 1905, being one of a consignment sent from Waterford to Cardiff. The Inspector of the Irish Department who examined the consignment before exportation saw no signs of swine fever. There is no veterinary inspection of pigs landed from Ireland at Milford, and the disease was
  †See page 73–4
  120
  not discovered until the pig was slaughtered at Cardiff on 25th November, when an examination of the carcase showed disease of long standing. The diagnosis was confirmed by the veterinary officers of the Board.

  Irish Swine Exports.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, can he state whether the Law Officers of the Board were consulted as to the legality of the Orders, dated 22nd November, 1904, and 26th January, 1906, with reference to the importation of pigs from Ireland; and was their approval obtained before these Orders were promulgated.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Limavady Post Office.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state what were the annual Returns of postal matter dealt with in Limavady post office from 1895 to 1906 inclusive.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The complete Returns of postal matter dealt with at the Limavady office for the years in question are not available. The delivered correspondence, however, showed a fairly steady increase from 1895 till 1905, since which date it has fallen off.
  MR. SLOAN: Then it was not because of a decrease of work that the office was reduced from the status of a head office?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, but because it was thought that better control could be exercised from Deny.

  Gaelic League and Educational Works.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether any, and, if so, what, opportunity will be given to the writer of the Special Report on Educational Subjects, Volume 17, to make a personal investigation into the real facts of the work of the Gaelic League in promoting an educational and intellectual movement similar to that initiated by Bishop Grundtvig in Denmark; and can he say

  121
  what opportunity, if any, will be given, now or subsequently, to this writer to withdraw, in an equally public manner, the unwarranted reflection on a great educational movement in Ireland to which currency has been given in this volume.
  MR. McKENNA: The writer of the Report referred to is not an officer of the Board of Education and it does not, therefore, rest with the Board to give or refuse him an opportunity of making any inquiries which he may desire to undertake, or of modifying, either publicly or otherwise, any expressions or opinions contained in the Report.
  MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last three days a Paper has been issued correcting a statement in the original volume?
  MR. McKENNA: If the writer desired to correct anything he would of course have an opportunity of doing so. The question of correction rests solely with him.
  MR. BOLAND: Has the writer been informed that his statement has been challenged?
  MR. McKENNA: I will inquire.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Out of what fund is he paid?
  MR. McKENNA: The Inquiries Vote.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We shall probably take a lively interest in that Vote.

  Subsidised Steamer Services for Canada.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether a Ministerial Committee has been appointed by His Majesty's Government to consider proposals for a subsidised steamship line between Great Britain and Canada; if so, whether he can assure the House that the Government will not assent to any proposal which conflicts either with the recommendations of the Select Committee on steamship subsidies or with the pledges given by the Liberal Party at the general election to promote economy in public expenditure; whether this Ministerial Committee has had before it a
  122
  Canadian proposition that the line must be equipped in such a manner that perishable products of the Dominion may be landed in the mother country in the best condition; and whether it is part of the policy of His Majesty's Government to tax British and Irish farmers in order to enable competing Canadian produce to be carried across the Atlantic at less than commercial rates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The proposals referred to are being examined by certain members of the Government with the aid of experts. Until this examination has been completed, I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the financial clauses of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, he will appoint a Committee of this House or a Royal Commission to inquire into the financial relations of Scotland to the British Treasury.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I am not disposed to have an inquiry into the financial relations of Scotland to the Treasury. I do not think there is any danger of Scotland overdrawing its account.
  MR. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland does not get her share of the good things of the United Kingdom? Is she not the Cinderella of the Empire?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You have only to look at the Treasury Bench.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I have said I do not think there is any danger of Scotland overdrawing its account.

Cancer Research.
*CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now state if he is able to appoint a Royal Commission to examine into the causes of the national scourge, cancer.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Since the hon. and gallant Member gave notice of this Question some little time

123
ago, I have made inquiries of the authorities who are best qualified to express an opinion on a matter which we must all feel to be of the utmost importance, and I am advised that it would not be expedient at present to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of cancer. Though much research work is being systematically carried on in this country in connection with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and otherwise and abroad, I am advised that much remains to be done before any facts can be brought before a Royal Commission with any likelihood of their making such an inquiry fruitful for the public advantage.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving financial assistance to the Imperial Cancer Research Fund?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That does not arise out of the Question.

Blocking Motions.
LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state what are the Government proposals for dealing with the practice of blocking Motions.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government propose to have a Select Committee on this subject, which will be nominated without delay.

The London Institution.
MR. WATERLOW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the London Institution in Finsbury Circus, which is governed by a Royal Charter and regulated by an Act of Parliament of 1822, has for some time found great difficulty in carrying out the objects for which it was established in a manner adequate to its resources; and whether he will consider the desirability of instituting a Parliamentary inquiry with a view to the adoption of such measures as may seem desirable for increasing its usefulness.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no official information. If my hon. friend will suggest to the persons responsible for the conduct of the Institution that they should communicate
124
with the Board of Education, the Board will, I have no doubt, look into the matter.

Grand Committee.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of a Report of each Standing Committee, showing the proceedings of each, being printed and circulated when clauses as amended are from time to time printed and circulated during the sittings of the Committee.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think we had better in the meantime continue the practice which has so long prevailed in this matter.
SIR FRANCIS POWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are watching the matter.
MR. BYLES: Could not the Committee now sitting on the parliamentary Debates be asked to consider this question?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I adhere to my opinion it is better to go on as at present.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
James Carrige Rushe Lardner, esquire, for the County of Monaghan (North Monaghan Division).

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member form Standing Committee C (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Herbert Craig; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Morrell.
Report to lie upon the Table.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND).
*THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.), in moving for leave to introduce a Bill

125
"to facilitate the provision of land for certain evicted tenants in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to make provision with respect to the tenure of office by the Estates Commissioners," said: The object of the Bill which I am now asking leave to introduce may, I think, fairly be stated to be outside the realm—wide as that realm unfortunately still is—of existing Irish controversies. It is an enabling Bill, for it might well be intituled a Bill to enable both Houses of Parliament to keep their faith with the Irish people. Happily I need say nothing to revive the past. Everybody who has the least acquaintance with Irish history during the last thirty years will thank me for not reminding them of some of its worst features. Sixteen years ago, in 1891, the right hon. Gentleman now leading the Opposition, being then in office, accepted an Amendment to the Land Bill of that year, an Amendment which was recognised at the time to be, and I am sure was intended at the time to be, evidence of the intention of Parliament to do what it could to secure the speedy reinstatement of those tenants who had been evicted during what has often been described as a social war. Through no fault of the promoters of that legislation the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891 proved ineffective; and three years later, in 1894, my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India being then Chief Secretary, there came the Mathew Commission and Report, and the Bill of that year. I will not refer to the heated debates which then occurred, but I think I may fairly say that amidst all the heat there was on both sides of the House recognition of the necessity, if not of the justice, of setting about the accomplishment of the restoration of the evicted tenants. However, the Bill of 1894 did not become law. But a brighter day subsequently dawned. The representatives of the landlords and of the tenants met together in friendly conclave at the famous and beneficent Landlords' Conference, happily free from that Parliamentary rancour and from those transmitted Parliamentary hatreds, half real, half sham, which are the curse of Parliamentary government. It is not too much to say that the Landlords' Conference amounted to a concordat, and one of the terms of that concordat
126
reduced to writing was the speedy restoration of the evicted tenants. The Landlords' Conference was followed by that great Land Purchase Act of 1903, with which the name of my right hon. friend the Member for Dover is so honourably associated, and which by the terms of its second clause enabled evicted tenants, as there described, to become the purchasers of their former holdings. That is now four years ago. I will not detain the House by describing how it has come about that this work of restoration has been so slow, but I will refer them to the Special Report of the Estates Commissioners just issued and circulated, and would beg of every hon. Member, who desires to take a useful part in this healing work, to make himself fully acquainted with that Report. What, then, is the position at this moment of time? The Irish Government has been able by hard work and by the appointment and reinforcement of a special staff practically to complete the investigation of the claims of all persons asserting themselves to be evicted tenants within the meaning of the Act and seeking reinstatement. The total number of applications lodged with the Estates Commissioners from 1903 to today is 8,401. The total number of evicted tenants, or representatives of evicted tenants, who have already been restored to their former holdings, or provided with new holdings, up to date is 1,033. Of these, 946 have been restored to their old holdings, and eighty-seven to new holdings. In the case of seventy-three tenants, owners have intimated their acceptance of the price named by the Commissioners for the former holdings, while in 122 cases the price named by the Commissioners is at present under consideration of the owners. There have been 2,935 applications rejected by the Commissioners, after inquiry and report in each case by their inspectors, and for reasons which will be found stated in paragraph 20 of the Report. There have been 1,609 cases reported upon by the Commissioners and found to consist of, in their opinion, fit and proper persons to be reinstated either on their old holdings, or, if that be impossible, on new holdings; and the Commissioners have estimated that the outside number of evicted tenants remaining to be reinstated, including those 1,609, will not exceed the total number of 2,000. The

127
problem therefore is, how are we, after all these years, to set about in the quickest possible way to effect the restoration, not of an unknown and uncertain number of evicted tenants, but of those 2,000 persons, assuming that to be the outside figure, whose cases have been or will have been inquired into and reported upon by the persons selected by the Act of 1903 for that and other purposes? The persons to be reinstated, it must be understood, will be reinstated as purchasers under the Act of 1903. Anybody who regards the lapse of time and the number of tenants remaining to be dealt with will, I think, agree with me that in order to make a clean job of this business within a reasonable time the principle of compulsion must be recognised and adopted. I do not imagine that in very many cases it will have to be resorted to; but that the principle must be affirmed is, I think, generally recognised by all persons who have any intimate knowledge of the subject; and I will venture specially to refer, for the guidance of Members of this House, all of whom will, I hope, take a deep and abiding interest in this question, to Paragraphs 40 to 43 of the special Report to which I have already referred. The amount of land that will be required for the purpose may he taken at the very outside to be a total area of 80,000 acres; and the object of this Bill is to set going machinery, already happily in existence, to accomplish this purpose. To set up any new tribunal is greatly to be deprecated. "Better to bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." The Bill of 1903 created three Land Commissioners, who are still in possession—I will not say in enjoyment—of their offices, and who have during the last four years garnered an enormous amount of experience in connection with the value of Irish land. They and their inspectors have been the persons who have negotiated and arranged for over £5,500,000 worth of Irish land; and if they are unable to discharge the restricted duties imposed upon them by this Bill, to ascertain the value of some 80,000 acres, I do not know anybody who is. The thing to be judged is the value of land; and I can see no reason whatever, great as is my respect for the law, and great though temperate and well-reasoned as is my respect for Judges, reasons born of some measure of familiarity with them—I see no reason for the
128
importation of a legal luminary for the determination of that question. The Bill enables the Estates Commissioners to acquire any land for the limited purposes of the Bill. We have to appreciate what the limited purposes of the Bill are. They are the reinstatement of those 2,000 scheduled or named persons compulsorily, and to declare any land so acquired to be an estate within the meaning of the Land Purchase Act. Let it he understood that the object is to reinstate these persons as purchasers under the operation of the Land Purchase Act of 1903. "The purposes of the Bill" therefore means the provision of suitable parcels of land for evicted tenants to whom this Act applies and who have already been described in previous legislation, who—or, in order to make it perfectly exact, whose predecessors—were evicted from their holdings before the passing of the Act of 1903 who have made application to the Estates Commissioners before 1st May, 1907, to be put in occupation of holdings, and whom these Commissioners considered fit and proper persons to become purchasers under the Land Purchase Act; and it also means the provision of parcels of land for new tenants to whom the Bill applies, that is to say, for tenants (and persons nominated as the personal representatives of tenants) of holdings formerly occupied by evicted tenants to whom this Act applies. This power compulsorily to acquire land presents no difficulties except as to its value, when it is untenanted land; but what of the cases when the holding is in the occupation of a new tenant? Here we are upon difficult ground, I admit. All the Plan of Campaign estates inquired into by the Evicted Tenants Commission have practically been settled except two —the Clanricarde estate and the Lewis estate, both in county Galway. In regard to both these estates all efforts at a settlement have proved futile. On the Clanricarde estates there were 126 evicted tenants, and on the Lewis estate I think the number was thirty-five. Were we to say that in no circumstances whatsoever can we by the exercise of compulsory powers reinstate an evicted tenant in his old holding we should practically be proclaiming the impossibility of effecting a final settlement of this question. For it is just in the very cases where equity would most demand the restoration of the tenant that we should find

129
ourselves debarred from decreeing justice. What, therefore, we propose is that no tenanted land should be acquired compulsorily unless it is in the occupation of a new tenant to whom this Bill applies, and unless the Estates Commissioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district, and to the cost involved, consider it expedient that the evicted tenant should be reinstated as a purchaser of that land; and before any such reinstatement can be carried out, not only must the Estates Commissioners consider it expedient so to do, but they must have offered to put the new tenant forthwith into possession of a parcel of land subject to an annuity under the Land Purchase Acts not exceeding in amount the rent payable for the holding, and, if he is dissatisfied with that parcel of land, the Estates Commissioners shall, after giving him an opportunity of being heard, award such sum as appears to them to be full compensation for his interest in the holding in the same manner as if the holding had been resumed by the landlord under the powers conferred in Section 5 of the Land Act of 1881. Nor shall the tenant to whom compensation has been awarded be compelled to quit his holding until the amount of compensation due to him has been paid or deposited in the promised manner. Under these provisions, therefore, no new tenant can be required to withdraw from his holding unless the Estates Commissioners think, in all the circumstances of the case, it is necessary that he should be required so to withdraw, and he is to be offered land on as good terms as his existing holding; or, if ho does not wish land, full compensation is to be paid him. I do not want now to go into the particulars I have at hand with regard to many of these now tenants, but I may safely say that in a great many of the cases they cannot be described as bona fide tenants at all. They are more caretakers of the landlords, who have entirely failed to do justice to these holdings. Evidence of this kind will be forthcoming if demanded. The general machinery of the Bill may be shortly stated as follows:— The Estates Commissioners publish a notice in the Dublin Gazette as to the land they want, calling upon any persons interested in the land within a prescribed period to give a statement of the grounds
130
of their objection. The notice will be served on all persons known or believed to be interested. After publication of the notice, the Commissioners may enter upon the land to do whatever is necessary for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether the land is suitable and to form some estimate of the price they are to name. If it appears to the Estates Commissioners, after considering the Report of their inspectors, and after considering any objections to the acquisition of the land, that the land is suitable and that no valid objection has been raised, they may make an offer; and after having made such offer they give notice in a prescribed manner to everybody interested in the land of their intention to acquire it at the named price. Unless, within a limited period, a petition is present of against the acquisition of the land, the land will be acquired without further inquiry. If no petition is presented, therefore, no difficulty arises. If a petition is presented, and is not withdrawn, the petition and all questions arising there on, subject to the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1903 in respect of questions of law, will be heard and determined by the Estates Commissioners, or any two of them, and their decision shall be final and conclusive. That is a sufficient statement for the present purpose of the machinery of the Bill. Considerable expense will have to be incurred in equipping the untenanted land for the evicted tenant when reinstated. Already under Clause 12 of the Land Act, 1903, the Land Commission when reinstating evicted tenants have been able to execute such works as in their opinion were expedient, and to charge them upon the reserve fund established under the Act of 1891. This reserve fund is now represented by a sum of £202,000 in Consols, worth about £175,000 of cash. The Bill proposes that all expenses incurred by the Estates Commissioners under Section 12 of the Act of 1903—that is to say, in equipment —and also all expense incurred in compensation to planters, will be paid out of the reserve fund until it is exhausted and afterwards out of the Land Commission Vote. There is another provision, because we have to bear in mind that the value given by the Estates Commission to the land may in some eases be more than can reasonably be charged to the

131
tenant by way of the purchase annuity, and therefore permissson may be given in some cases—I hope not in many—to the Lord-Lieutenant to enable the Commissioners to incur loss in reselling land, and the amount of that loss we propose shall be paid out of the Land Purchase Aid Fund. That fund is established by Section 47 of the Act of 1893, and is available under Section 48 for the purpose of inducing owners to sell land by paying to them an additional 12 per cent. on their purchase money. We also, of course, take powers to enable the Commissioners to sell any surplus land which may remain on their hands which they cannot dispose of in the manner contemplated by the Act. Power is also taken to secure to the Estates Commissioners a tenure somewhat different from that which they now have; but a sum will be borne on the Parliamentary Vote in order that their conduct can from time to time be called under review.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what fund will be used for the purpose of equipment after the reserve fund standing at £175,000 is exhausted?
*MR. BIRRELL: When that has been exhausted the money will be paid out of the Parliamentary Vote which goes to meet the cost of the Land Commission. The other clauses will be found in the Bill, but I think they are of a machinery nature, and simply by way of protection against possible unnecessary alarm. I do not want to make a personal appeal to the House. I have boon most unfortunate as a legislator. I ask for no consideration for myself—a subject on which, I believe, I am as completely indifferent as any man can be. But in this matter I own I do think that the House should come if it can to the assistance of anybody who happens to be Chief Secretary for Ireland at the moment, not to share the burden, which, happily for themselves, they cannot do, but at all events to lighten it. The state of affairs in the West of Ireland at present is somewhat gloomy. Rain is falling pitilessly, the turf, on the sale of which the happiness and means of many of these peasants depends, lies rotting, the seaweed which they have laboriously collected for the purpose of manure, as Sir Henry Robinson has just informed me, is as wet as on the day it came out
132
of the sea, and the outlook is dismal and gloomy enough. I am satisfied that some such measure as this would, at all events, be taken by that population as a measure of good faith and good fooling, and I do hope that every one who takes part in the discussion of this matter will feel that he is happy that he is called on to assist and hold out a helping hand to put an end to this state of things. A measure of this sort, I honestly believe, will help to bind up many a well-nigh broken heart, and in some measure to staunch the bleeding wound. At all events, those of us who fool able to support this measure through its passage may feel certain that their own winter firesides will be all the brighter by their efforts, and that the roof-trees of their own homes, which probably are not half as dear to them as the cabin of the Irish peasant is to him, will stand all the faster.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the provision of land for certain evicted tenants in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith; and to make provision with respect to the tenure of office by the Estates Commissioners."—(Mr. Birrell.)
MR. WALTER LONG: The speech the right hon. Gentleman has just made in introducing the Bill is in itself, I think, a sufficient justification for the view that a measure of this kind, not only extremely complicated, but, as the right hon. Gentleman himself evidently thinks, of the greatest possible importance, ought not to have been introduced under the system which permits of only one brief speech on each side, and makes an inquiry as to the details of the Bill very difficult and further debate impossible. The right hon. Gentleman in his allusions to the past history of the evicted tenants question went a little further than he was entitled to do in regard to the view taken by the present Leader of the Opposition and some of those who have preceded him in his office, because the references they have made, to which he made passing allusion, wore to the tenants on what wore known as the Plan of Campaign Estates, which are given in the Report as seventeen in number, and in regard to which fifteen have already been dealt with, leaving only two outstanding. The Report is

133
only a short one, and though we only received it yesterday I have done my best to make myself master of it. But I can find nothing in it which justifies the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that the number arrived at— 2,000—is one which may be regarded with any confidence as a final number. The Commissioners gave rather briefly the process by which they had arrived at that number. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had been able, in answer to questions which have been addressed to him in the last week or two, to tell us something more of the actual inquiries which have been made into the applicants and as to the facts in the case of the tenants who have already been reinstated. We have heard in more than one quarter that some of those who have been reinstated have already taken advantage of their position practically to make their future an impossible one, and that a not inconsiderable number of those included in the 2,000 are men of whom it is perfectly well known that they have failed previously in their agricultural occupations and in regard to whom there is very little reason to believe that if they are restarted they will have a more prosperous future than the fate they have had in the past. I refer to these two points because they have an important bearing upon the eloquent appeal which the Chief Secretary made at the end of his speech. He has appealed to all those who found it possible to do so to support him in his work of healing a sore in Ireland. He told us ho believed there was a necessity for this Bill, and that it would have beneficent results. In the absence of the information I have referred to, and of any direct statement as to the people who are included in the 2,000, it is impossible for anybody with any past experience of agrarian movements in Ireland to believe that, if we give the sanction of Parliament to those compulsory powers nominally for the provision only of those 2,000, it will be possible for any Minister or Government to stop there. The 2,000 will grow as rapidly as the 700 has already grown into 2,000. It is only the other day that gentlemen talking about this question with knowledge and figures before them spoke of the number of men they were to deal with as 500, 600, or
134
700. It has grown already to 2,000, Everybody knows perfectly well that, however we may safeguard ourselves now and however careful the Chief Secretary may be to indicate that the Bill is only intended to apply to this limited number of cases, we shall not be able to stop, but shall be driven to extend the privileges to others. It is impossible within the limits of a short speech to have explained to us a Bill of this kind in such a way that anybody, however familiar with Irish procedure and Irish legislation, will be able to follow it completely. Ono thing is perfectly clear—it is a new procedure of compulsory acquisition of land. I am not going to dispute the question of compulsion. I can conceive circumstances in which compulsion may be absolutely necessary, but such circumstances have to be established and the Report has not established them. The Chief Secretary has called attention to Clauses 40 and 41, but I have read the Report twice and must declare that; there is nothing in it to justify compulsion. Nothing has been said in the Chief Secretary's speech to justify the compulsory powers. Is it to be suggested that we are to give compulsory powers for this special purpose because in two cases only the present policy has failed, and is it to attain success in those two cases that the compulsory powers are to be granted? I am conscious of the fact that I have already spoken longer than I ought to, but the difficulties of the procedure to be adopted are so great that it is impossible to cover them within the limits of a short speech. Does the Bill give any appeal against the Estates Commissioners, and, if so, to whom? The right hon. Gentleman has told us there is it to be a petition; is to be a petition to the Estates Commissioners against their own order? If so, it is hardly a valuable provision to insert in the Bill. With regard to the finance, we are to be met in the first place by the reserve fund, and, secondly, by the annual vote of the Estates Commissioners. I should be glad to know the real sum. The Chief Secretary makes his appeal to us that this sore may be removed from Ireland, but I do not consider that the employment of compulsory powers has been justified. It is neither reasonable nor fair to hand the people over to the Estates Commissioners. The primary duty of the Estates Commissioners is to buy the land in order to resell it, and is it fair to give

135
them absolute discretion as to what land they are to apply the compulsory powers to? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned equipment. That is a very import ant consideration, for the cost of equipment has risen in some eases to between £400 and £500. When we add to that the value of the fee simple, the cost is such that it is very difficult for any part of it to be repaid. We have already enough difficulty in regard to holdings in Ireland, but I believe that without justification we are adopting a new procedure which will fail and create fresh difficulties, and make the settlement of the land question in Ireland more difficult than it is at present.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Birrell, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, and Mr. T. W. Russell.

EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
"To facilitate the provision of land for certain evicted tenants in Ireland, and for other purposes connected therewith; and to make provision with respect to the tenure of office by the Estates Commissioners," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

SUPPLY [14TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8, CLASS II.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That a sum, not exceeding £184,484, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
*SIR F. CHANNINGsaid he wished to elicit some
136
further and decisive statement from his right hon. friend with regard to railway rates and charges made to the trading public. He was invited to introduce to his right hon. friend during the last twelve months two very important deputations. In regard to the first, dealing with owner's risk notes and the failure of the railway companies to grant fair alternative rates, a Bill was brought in to deal with the matter, and therefore he would not refer to it further except to express the hope that in the event of that Bill not passing his right hon. friend would hold out some hopes of the question being dealt with in the near future. The second deputation had reference to a combination, initiated in the last year or two, which culminated in a specific agreement between the railway companies in the month of January last, a combination which apparently had for its aim and object an agreement which operated compulsorily on the various companies not to continue to grant to the traders of the country the customary rebates which had been given from time to time purely as the result of a wholesome and healthy growth of competition. The preliminary objection which he took to the agreements that had been arrived at between the railway companies was that they were absolutely secret and inaccessible to the traders of the country. If the traders could obtain accurate details of the charges imposed upon them and the reason for those charges and their disintegration into their separate items, the Board of Trade could put into operation powers in existing Acts which would enable the traders to a certain extent to obtain from the Board of Trade or the railway companies such protection as was necessary. But that was extremely difficult. The policy which seemed to have been arrived at was the withdrawal of the agreements by the railway companies from the knowledge of traders and a determination upon their part to restrain the agents of the companies who were inclined to obtain business by the ordinary method of competition, namely, a reduction of the rate in the districts served by other companies, and to enforce on traders the full rates. The result of the agreements had been to drive up all the rates to the maximum and to deprive the traders of those concessions which they had originally obtained through the competition of

137
the companies. He saw in this the beginning of a combination of irresistible capitalism to control the interests of trade solely in the interests of vast groups of capital such as President Roosevelt had been opposing with splendid vigour in the interests of the general trading public of the United States. He urged the President of the Board of Trade in the same way to check this policy of secret, illicit, and illegal combination now at its inception. The traders only knew that the rebates and concessions which they had enjoyed for years had been withdrawn, and that rates wore being screwed up to the highest point which the Acts of the companies enabled them to charge. What they said was that the railway companies were adopting a secret policy of consolidation, and of endeavouring to withdraw themselves from the control of Parliament and the Board of Trade, as well as to obtain the advantages of amalgamation without coming to Parliament, and thus giving an opportunity of fair conditions being imposed, and they wore thus depriving the traders of the opportunity of obtaining the protection that they required. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not, under the powers he had got, insist on fuller publicity and accessibility being given to the items of railway rates. The right hon. Gentleman would recognise that he had some power in his hands to check the proceedings of the railway companies, although he freely admitted that more power would have to be given to him to deal thoroughly with the evil. What they asked was that power should be given to obtain the publication of and accessibility to the agreements between the railway companies, in order to enable traders to see how far, under the arrangements imposed upon them, they were being deprived of the advantages given under the Act of 1894. The whole of this policy was animated with and illustrated by the policy of the railway companies. Clauses had boon introduced into nearly all their Bills recently in order to obtain practically a monopoly of the cartage in connection with railway traffic. He might just allude to some facts which had recently come before the Royal Commission in regard to this question of cartage, and about the withdrawal of proper information about the rates and their details. It had boon
138
established on a number of facts that the rebates granted by railway companies to traders who did their own cartage themselves or through competing carrier firms were now considerably less than the amount of the charges made by the companies themselves as shown in the items of their station to station rates in respect of cartage services which the railway companies rendered themselves. They therefore wanted greater accessibility to the items of those rates, and he would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could not, under the existing Acts, adopt machinery and take steps which would enable him to check that course of conduct. He was informed that in some cases the rebates given were actually only half the charges which were imposed under the collection and delivery rates. That was a very serious thing. It was practically destroying competition, and setting up a preferential system by the railway companies who misused the powers given them by their Acts. The traders of the country would be deeply grateful to his right hon. friend if he signalised the holding of his office by checking this great abuse, and by securing what, he believed, was always the case in other countries, that they should have absolute access to the details of the railway charges, so that the traders might know exactly where they were in respect of all these questions. They asked that the right hon. Gentleman should employ, in regard to the railway companies, some of the same policy, some of the same reasoning which he had so wisely and properly adopted in respect of the wrong and oppressive covenants and agreements in force under the provisions of the Patent Acts which he was remedying in the present session. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his administrative powers as President of the Board of Trade to deal with this question in the same spirit as that in which he was dealing with the provisions of the Patent Acts. If he found that his powers were insufficient to enable him to deal with the established and recognised grievances of the traders, created by this unfair exercise of the powers of the railway companies, the right hon. Gentleman should not shrink from coming forward to obtain the fullest powers to deal with the evils.
*SIR CHARLES McLAREN: said that everybody connected with the commercial interests of the country would cordially congratulate his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade on the way in which he had administered his Department. He had never heard any complaint against him, and he had handled with tact and discretion the questions which had been left to his administration. Among other matters, he would like to refer to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at the opening of the latest tube railway in reference to the position of the Board of Trade as regarded railway questions. Great interest had been excited of late, partly through the Board of Trade, and partly through the Press, on a great many of these questions, and his hon. friend the Member for Northamptonshire had voiced the views, no doubt well founded, of a large section of the community. There was, however, a feeling that railway shareholders were being attacked by all classes of the community; that they were being attacked by the officials of the Board of Trade, and that they were being attacked by the public, who wished to have greater facilities at lower prices; and they had also been the object, which he did not at all condemn, of the very able and temperate appeal of the Member for Derby on behalf of the railway employees. He was quite sure that railway directors were not hostile to any of these classes. They were anxious to do what they could for the public, and they were more than anxious to do what they could for their employees. He saw that his right hon. friend, in receiving a deputation, stated that he was communicating with the various interests, and that he would not fail to boar them in mind. But there was one condition which was essential before the railway companies could do anything, and that was that they must have the money with which to satisfy demands. They must be placed in a position by which they could not only earn more money, but obtain more capital. The right hon. Gentleman was very well advised when he told the public that any legislation proposed by the Board of Trade, or any of their administrative Acts, would not be such as to frighten the investing public from putting their money
140
into these securities. He hoped as far as the Board of Trade was concerned that there would be no encouragement given to any proposal for a reduction of rates or fares, so long as the public were making these demands upon railway directors. He for one would be very glad if the railway companies could increase the wages of their employees and reduce their hours, provided the public were willing to give them a reasonably increased revenue by submitting to a reasonable increase in the railway fares. The question of shipping had boon handled by his right hon. friend. This had been for years one of the most delicate questions with which the House had had to deal. There was nothing but praise for the manner in which the President of the Board of Trade had consulted all the interests concerned, by which means he had succeeded in settling a large number of questions not only important to the traders, but to the shipowners of the country — questions of a quasi-international character, questions which had to be settled in order to put our shipowners in as reasonable a position in British ports as ships sailing under the flags of foreign Powers. His right hon. friend had settled all those questions, and he had never heard anyone give him anything but praise. He wished to say a word about the Blue-books which were issued by the Board of Trade and which contained a valuable amount of information on our current commercial position. He hoped his right hon. friend would continue to publish what was called the Fiscal Blue book, and he thought the staff of the Department could not give too much attention to the elaboration of the figures and analyses of the Returns. It must be the feeling on both sides of the House that the Reports ought to be of a strictly impartial character: that was to say, they should not be used purely for the promotion of views about free trade on the one hand and what was called fiscal reform on the other. They ought plainly to state the facts and leave to the common sense and intelligent criticism of the public the application of those facts and figures in support of or in opposition to the views then under discussion. In addition to those Blue-books there was issued every month a valuable White-book containing the Board of

141
Trade Returns of foreign trade. He thought that might be made more intelligible to the ordinary trader. In the first place there was not a good classification of our exports. They would find among the heads "steel and iron" exports, which included an enormous variety of goods for export, agricultural machinery, steam engines, textile machinery, and a number of other descriptions of articles; but what was required was amore elaborate sub-division or classification of those goods in order to make the Returns more useful to traders. If they turned to the countries to which our goods were exported, he was surprised that more attention had not been given to the matter. Canada, our premier Colony, for instance, in a largo number of the references was actually not mentioned at all, but was simply grouped under the head of "other countries." That was absurd, at a time when so much attention was being devoted to Colonial interests, and when Canada herself was doing all she could to secure in Canada British interests instead of American interests. He thought it was absurd that the official returns should make no mention of Canada at all, but that she should be grouped with such countries as Monte Video and Uruguay. When they turned to Australia, no information at all as to the several Colonies was given. He thought they ought to have in the case of each country, however unimportant it might be, and of each Colony, a proper statement where that was possible. One other fault he had to find with the White-book had reference to the system by which the value of exports and imports was stated. The value of exports was given f.o.b., that was "free on board" at the port of export; but the imports were entered at the price at which they arrived, and not f.o.b. at the port from which they had been exported, which meant that commission, freight, and insurance were added to the price. That was a totally misleading set of figures. The real value of goods was not what it was on board ship at Cardiff or Liverpool but their value at the port of destination. They were sold to a merchant in the foreign ports and the price of the freight and insurance should be added. The system adopted was not the right way of dealing with these figures, and whatever rule was adopted it should be
142
similar in each case. The present method made the value of the export trade less and the import trade apparently much greater than it really was, and those fallacies gave rise to wrong deductions. One half of the revenue obtained from shipping freights, insurance, and merchants' profits was excluded from the Blue-books. Although the Consular Reports published by the Foreign Office did not come within the scope of the Board of Trade, he believed the powers of that Department were wide enough to enable his right hon. friend to take some steps to assist British commerce abroad. If a Vote was asked for this purpose he felt sure it would be granted, and then the right hon. Gentleman could establish Board of Trade agents to take the place of the Foreign Consular agents, who were of very little use to British traders. They were often of German nationality and they did not take up the case of the British trader in the way the German representatives did. The right hon. Gentleman would do a great service to British trade if he would institute some system of trained commercial agents, thoroughly acquainted with foreign languages and commerce, to represent this country abroad. They wanted a class of men who would not turn up their noses at tradesmen and who would be prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel to further British trade. In spite of all drawbacks this country had succeeded in building up a splendid foreign trade. For the month of May only, our imports had increased by over £5,000,000, and our exports by over £9,000,000, as compared with 1905. This year for a period of five months our imports had increased £51,000,000 and our exports £43,000,000, of which £35,000,000 were manufactured goods. That meant an enormous prosperity in the trade of the country. It should be noted that this was trade carried on in a legitimate way, without any undue forcing up of prices, and resting upon a solid foundation, although we could not hope to always maintain prices at their present level. There was no reason, however, to suppose that we were on the eve of any very great slump such as had been witnessed in years gone by, due to speculative movements which had rushed up prices to a point which they had never reached before and ought never to have reached. With regard to raw material, of iron ore we imported

143
during the same period 153,000 tons as against 123,000 tons. That spoke volumes for the prosperity of the iron trade. The increase in the imports of wool was £21,000,000 as against £14,000,000; hides 197,000 cwts. as against 145,000 cwts.; boots and shoes £800,000 as against.£700,000;and hosiery and thread, which so largely affected the Midlands, £39,000,000 as against £33,000,000. Cotton exports amounted to £45,000,000 as against £37,000,000. Those figures showed that we were enjoying a trade boom, and this was particularly the case in the coal, coke, iron, and steel trades. The woollen and worsted trades showed £14,000,000 against £12,000,000, whilst coal and coke for the period of five months this year showed an export trade of 25,000,000 as against 19,000,000 tons two years ago. As for value the price received was exactly one-half more than the price received two years ago. What was true of our foreign trade was equally true of our home trade. When they got the figures 'of the census of production they would have something definite to go upon. There was no doubt that the consumption of goods by the working-classes and the middle classes in this country never was so great as today, and the working men of France, Germany, and Italy compared very un-favourably with English workmen as consumers of home products. As regarded fuel, clothing, furniture, and luxuries the English workman consumed more than the working man of any other country in the world except the United States of America, and employment and wages had never before been so continuously good as during the last three or four years. He desired to congratulate the Labour Party upon the way they had handled the difficult problems arising out of disputes between employers and employed. The establishment of a Conciliation Board had been of enormous value to our trade. In this way disputes had been prevented, more especially in the coal mining industry, and that had given confidence to coal owners, enabled them to sell forward, and permitted buyers to buy without fear of a stoppage of the collieries and the disastrous consequences which always followed strikes and lockouts. They had now established a system which for a long time to come would enable them to settle these disputes in a
144
business-like way. The result had been an enormous output of coal and an enormous increase in our export of coal to foreign countries. Some people looked upon that as not being any sign of prosperity and argued that it was wasting our national resources. But coal was one of the most highly manufactured articles produced in this country. It had no raw material behind it which had to be paid for; the only raw material was really the royalty which had to be paid to the landlords. In that respect it was not like cotton or the leather used in the shoe-making trade. In the case of coal it was labour from first to last, and, what was more, it was highly paid and mostly skilled labour. Out of every shilling spent on coal no loss than 10d. went in the shape of wages. Therefore it was an enormous advantage to this country to maintain and increase our exports of coal. Those engaged in coal getting and the skilled men about the engine boilers and machinery connected with mining had been earning incomes which, for the last two years, had been steadier than they had over been before. There was nothing that made more for the prosperity of England than the high price and the large exports of coal. There was no fear of the exhaustion of our coal supply; the Report of the Royal Commission which inquired into that question had put an end to all doubts on that subject. At the present rate of output there was a sufficient stock of coal to last for hundreds of years, and what they had to fear more than exhausting the coal supply was that coal might not be such a necessary article in the near future. They would probably find other forms of fuel taking the place of coal, and therefore he strongly advised the people of this country to get out of the bowels of the earth every ton of coal they could whilst the sun was shining on the coal trade. Coal was of no value at the bottom of a mine, but every ton of coal brought to the top represented 10s., which might be invested in works of public necessity, such as railways, bridges, and houses, and in that way they could turn the coal info a permanent source of profit for all generations to come. Therefore he hoped that no one would go away with the idea that the prosperity of the coal trade was in any way an injurious factor to the prosperity of the country. It should not be forgotten

145
that we owed much of our present prosperity to the prosperity of Germany and the United States. Those who read about this subject in some newspapers were rather inclined to think that because Germany and the United State were prosperous in trade that fact necessarily injured the trade of Great Britain. The real fact of the case, however, was that when Germany and America enjoyed good trade they were amongst our very best customers, and the high price of iron was due to the fact that Germany and United States, in spite of protective tariffs were bound to take our iron and steel in very large quantities. On the other hand, when Germany and the United States had bad trade they tried to under-sell us. He was not going into that question at present, but ho would point out that it was important for ensuring the prosperity of our trade that there should also be prosperity in foreign countries which, in spite of their tariffs, must be amongst our best customers. There were large questions in connection with the trade of the country which, after all, were far above fiscal disputes, and he hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would maintain the attitude of fairness to all sections of the community— labour on the one hand and capital on the other—which he had hitherto shown, and which ho was certain must appeal to the sympathy of all interested in the commercial and industrial welfare of the country.
*MR WARDLE: said he could not entirely assent to some of the statements made by the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division in his interesting speech. He was not quite sure that either the traders or the railway employees would agree with the statement that an increase in the rates and fares was the only way by which prosperity could be restored. There wore other ways, but he did not propose entering into them at present. He desired to call attention to two matters in connection with the practical administration of the Board of Trade. The first was the question of accidents on railways. He was pleased to notice that the enforcement of the Acts already in existence had had some effect in reducing the number of accidents on railways both to railway servants and the general public. That was striking
146
testimony to the fact that legislation in this direction had been in the interest of the whole community. In 1875, when the railway employees numbered 250,000 and the traffic was very much less than now, there were 765 employees killed and 3,618 injured in the movement of vehicles, while in 1901, when the employees numbered 578,000, there were only 416 killed and 4,243 injured, although the traffic had at least doubled in the interval. A matter calling for attention in regard to this subject was the form of the return in which these accidents were reported. It included those only resulting from collisions and the movement of vehicles and did not provide for the inclusion of certain other accidents, which, consequently, were never included in the totals made up by the Board of Trade. In 1904, for instance, of servants employed in warehouses and other places there were 32 killed and 10,590 injured. These accidents ought to be shown in the returns. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would arrange for the issue of forms in future which would show the whole of the accidents, and not simply those resulting from the movement of vehicles. The locomotives, carriages, and waggons on the railways in this country numbered 811,044, and 52,322 miles of single track and sidings, but at present there was not adequate provision for the inspection of the rolling stock and permanent way by Government inspectors. Accidents did sometimes result from the fact that engines and waggons were not properly looked after and repaired. Attention should be given to this point by the Board of Trade. There wore at present only ten inspectors to do the whole of the work, and obviously it was impossible for them to see that all necessary precautions were taken. In connection with the Home Office there were 165 inspectors of factories, forty inspectors of mines, and four inspectors of explosives, and, taking these figures into consideration, it appeared to him that a larger number of Board of Trade inspectors should be employed to look after railway matters While he was glad there had been a progressive improvement, ho thought something might still be done to reduce the toll of life which was annually paid in connection with the working of railways. The returns showed that accidents increased when there was a boom in

147
trade. He believed that was due to the longer hours the men wore employed in dealing with the traffic. He did not say that was the only cause, but certainly it was one of the causes. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could state what had been the result of his inquiries into the matter of long hours. On the 6th March when the subject was debated in this House certain promises were made, but personally he was convinced that the President of the Boare of Trade would not find a full solution of the difficulty with the administrative powers he at present possessed. Referring to superannuation funds for railway servants, he pointed out that there were sixteen of these funds, including that in connection with the Rail-way Clearing House. The funds were established by Act of Parliament and membership was compulsory. While he had not a word to say against the motives of those who promoted the funds, he wished to state that some inquiry into the management and control was necessary, for the benefits varied as much as between 60 and 100 per cent. Some of these were guaranteed; some were paid on the average salary of the whole service of the men; and some were paid on the average of the last seven years of service. One railway company had changed its payments to its annuitants no less than three times. When the railway companies were forced by Act of Parliament to make an actuarial valuation of their funds it was found that they were practically insolvent. What he proposed was that there should be a Committee of Inquiry to establish uniformity, so that every person employed by a railway company should pay the same contribution and have an equal benefit under the Act. This matter affected 85,000 persons. Certain manipulations of these funds had gone on from time to time. When they were originally established there was a periodical actuarial valuation, but that ceased to be made, the one exception being the London and South Western Railway Company, which had started their fund on a life annuity basis. But in 1896 there was a clamour amongst the employees of the L. & N. W. Co. for an increase of their pensions. An actuarial investigation was made, and the report of the actuaries stated that there was not sufficient surplus over to give
148
any additional pensions. And what happened? A committee which was appointed, largely from the chief officers of the company, decided to increase the pensions by 50 per cent., and as a consequence the fund was subsequently declared to be insolvent to the extent of over a million. The company had therefore to come to Parliament for a remedy for that state of matters. It was so with almost every one of these railway funds; they had been declared to be actuarially insolvent. It was part of the provision of the Act that the funds should be valued from time to time and that any deficit should be made good by the railway company. But the pensions had been increased in the case of the London and North Western Railway Company and the Caledonian Company at the instigation of the higher officials—many of whom had been given pensions calculated on the average of their salaries during their last seven years of service instead of over the whole period of their service. It was that which had caused such a drain on the funds. As an illustration there was the case of an officer in the Clearing House Fund who, after twenty-nine years membership of the fund, would have had a pension under the old scale of £953, but under the revised scale, calculating the salary during the last seven years of service, his pension was increased to £2,497, or an increase of 162 per cent. But that did not apply to all classes of men. Chief clerks, for instance, whose average salary was £193, under the old scale got a pension of £93, and under the new scale £100, or an increase of only 17 per cent. He believed that there was a maximum in regard to pensions in the Great Eastern and Great Northern Railway Companies' funds. What he wanted was that under these funds every employee under all the railway companies should be treated on a fair and equitable basis. It was, he contended, the duty of the Board of Trade to see that that was so. In many cases the railway companies were shifting the future liability for pensions to their employees when the existing funds were exhausted on to the shareholders. Therefore, for the protection of the shareholders as well as of the directors themselves, these funds should be thoroughly examined and put on a reasonable and sound basis. He trusted that the Committee of Inquiry would be established.
MR. SEDDONsaid he wanted to join in the chorus of praise to the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he had answered the many Questions put to him. Some twelve or eighteen months ago it was his duty to bring under the right hon. Gentleman's notice the conditions of the watch making trade. Both the public and the local manufacturers were at the mercy of unscrupulous foreign manufacturers, and he was glad that certain anomalies and injustices in the trade had been removed. There were two Acts of Parliament which affected their trade —the Mercantile Marks Act and the Sale of Hall-marked Goods Act; but there was no machinery to put those Acts into operation. He had watched carefully, but could not find a single penny was being used for the employment of inspectors to see that those Acts were properly administered. He believed that the President of the Board of Trade was anxious that those Acts of Parliament should be enforced in the interest both of the British public and of British manufacturers. Thousands of watches were sold annually under misdescription, and at present there was no one whose duty it was to protect the public against that fraud. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way to appoint five inspectors —two for England, one for Scotland, one for Wales, and one for Ireland—to inspect places where gold and silver was sold. He did not know of any trade where there was so much fraud carried on as in the watch and jewellery trade, especially in connection with foreign imported goods. It was important that that trade should rot be lost to this country as such loss would be a calamity not only to our native manufacturers, but to the public at large. He maintained that by administering existing Acts of Parliament by ordinary methods the trade could be preserved to this country without any change in our fiscal policy. He was supported in that view by most of the chambers of commerce throughout the country—including the Chamber of Commerce of Coventry, the centre of the watch industry. He was not there to give a blessing on behalf of tariff reformers, but he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for attempting to do something in the interests of justice. He had a strong suspicion when he heard the chorus of praise of the
150
tariff reformers that the right hon. Gentleman was in danger from it. He thought to himself, "Woe unto you that all men speak well of," but he supposed this was the exception which proved the rule, and that the right hon. Gentleman was really guarding the interests of those engaged in the watch trade. The amount of fraud in the jewellery trade could be tested by hon. Members if they would walk down the Strand and look into the auction rooms. They would hear there watches described as of gold and silver which had no hall mark at all. This resulted in great injustice to the public, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the urgency of dealing with this question. The Merchandise Marks Act was being used as a blind in order to defeat the intentions with which it was passed. He instanced the case of Swiss watches. The words "made in Switzerland" wore very often so engraved that one would have to have a magnifying glass to distinguish them, and they could easily be erased.
SIR J. BRUNNERsaid he wished to associate himself with the praise which had been given to the President of the Board of Trade During the time the right hon. Gentleman had been in office he had shown imagination, sympathy, and courage, and what he had done had met with the strongest approval from the business community of the country. He desired now to encourage the right hon. Gentleman to take even a larger and bolder view of his duties, and he was led to do so by some words which fell from the Prime Minister when he last spoke at Plymouth, "the end we hold before us, that is to say the development of the resources of our own country to the utmost possible extent." He hoped the Prime Minister used those words after consultation with his colleagues, and he welcomed the declaration with intense pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman was the first Prime Minister who had ever made such a declaration. Ho (Sir J. Brunner) was not one of those who were afraid of a policy because it was new, and he did not believe they ought to condemn the Government for introducing any scheme which was for the benefit of the country. In regard to old age pensions, security of tenure for farmers, and the amendment of the land laws, they would

151
have his warmest support. They were now discussing the Board of Trade Estimates, and it was before that body that the consideration of these subjects would come. In the course of his recent tour with other representatives of this country on the continent he found that every other country gave the greatest attention to the development of the national resources as one of the objects of national policy. The same object was pursued in our own Colonies, and in his opinion it was the duty of statesmen to prosecute it. An objection was taken to the guarantee of the loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal, but similar loans had been given to other Colonies for public works. He remembered that he was called to order by the late Speaker when, referring to the Uganda railway, he said he was sick of this country spending money in all quarters of the world when we could not find money enough for own people. What we had done for our Colonies it seemed to him that we ought to do for our own people. As a result the Colonies had constructed their own railways, and their national debts were to a large extent represented by growing assets. During his visit with other Members of both Houses, including Lords Avebury and Brassey, to France, in December, 1903, he was interested to learn in Paris that the Credit Lyonnais drew up for the benefit of its customers a balance sheet of every civilised country, so that they might judge of their rentability, to use a French word. They heard, and it was a remarkable fact, that this country was the only one in the world which had no assets to set against the debt. That was, however, hardly correct, because in that calculation only the dead weight debt was dealt with. But, after all, the local loans debt against which we had assets was a mere flea-bite compared with the total debt, and therefore the statement was quite justified. He would support the Government if, in order to provide for public works, they pursued with courage the new policy of adding to our debt. It would be a wholesome and economic policy, because it would result in greatly increasing our national prosperity. Prussia's ownership of the railways had been the most potent means in the
152
production of her national prosperity. The last country which they visited was Prussia and the prosperity of that country during the forty-six years he had been watching it had filled him with admiration, and of late years he confessed with terror. He did not want this country to be beaten by Prussia, the United States, or any other country, and therefore he hoped that we might take a lesson from Prussia and mend our ways. Prussia had long considered that the development of the national intellect should be part of the national policy, and he was glad to see that in that matter we were rapidly overtaking that country. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to press forward the inquiries he was making, not only as regarded the purchase of railways, but with regard to all other public works. The cost of the transit of goods was higher in this country than in any other country in the world. He was convinced that if the country was persuaded to adopt the policy which had been shadowed forth by the Prime Minister, especially in the matter of procuring cheaper transit for English goods, it would bring much more prosperity to our manufacturers than any system of so-called moderate import duties.
MR. FIELDsaid he entirely agreed with what the hon. Baronet had said with reference to the development of the railway resources of the country. We had, in this country, however, no Minister of Public Works, which in his opinion we ought to have. We also ought to have a Minister of Commerce and a Minister of Railways. The President of the Board of Trade practically did all this work of the country and had no consultative committee. He had a Board consisting of himself and permanent officials and a body of gentlemen who never met, and he had therefore only the assistance of the permanent officials. It was extraordinary that in a commercial country like England we should have a Board of Trade that was practically non-existent, when all those countries who were considering these questions in competition with us had consultative Committees and Ministers of Commerce as well. As an Irishman it

153
might be thought peculiar in him to venture to criticise an English Department, but he desired to take that opportunity to protest against the whole system of permanent officials, because practically they governed the House. The President of the Board of Trade was sympathetic, and might desire to make some reform, but he was generally hampered by the permanent officials. We certainly ought to have a Railway Minister.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it was not in order to discuss whether there should be a Railway Minister.
MR. FIELDsaid he was always willing to obey the ruling of the Chair, but he would like to point out that if Mr. Deputy-Chairman was a committeeman he would immediately see that the railways had a great deal to do with the commerce of the country, and therefore he submitted that as they were controlled by the Board of Trade it was competent for an hon. Member to point out that there should be a Minister of Railways and Commerce.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid it was not a matter of administration but of legislation, and therefore it was not in order to discuss it.
MR. FIELDsaid he was not discussing it, he merely made the suggestion. He was strongly in favour of the nationalisation of Irish railways, and he entirely concurred with the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cheshire. He believed that in every country where the railways were nationalised commercial prosperity followed. There was no chance whatever of commercial prosperity in Ireland until the railways were put under different management. The hon. Baronet had spoken of the prosperity of Great Britain—he had not mentioned Ireland—being bound up with the prosperity of Germany and the United States. He had pointed out what was accepted by everybody with a knowledge of commerce, that the prosperity of one country was dependent on the prosperity of another, because unless the various countries were more or less prosperous they could not be customers by going from one country to another, which, of
154
course, was the basis of trade between different nations. He wondered whether it was want of sympathy or of intellect which led hon. Members to talk of the prosperity of Germany, the United States, France, and other countries, while they had never a word as to whether or not there was prosperity in Ireland. Surely, if Ireland were more prosperous it would be better not only for her but for this country. Ireland, moreover, was entitled to greater consideration by reason of the fact that she constituted that portion of the United Kingdom which most relied on the development of her resources for prosperity in the future. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bosworth had stated that to meet the demands made upon them the railway companies wanted more money, and that that could only be obtained by raising the passenger fares. He would tell the hon. Baronet one way in which the railway companies could economise, and that was by cutting down the enormous salaries which the managers and directors received.
SIR F. BANBURY: No, they do not. The directors have only £400, and in some instances only £300. [An HON. MEMBER: More than a Member of Parliament.]
MR. FIELD: Yes; more than a Member of Parliament, for Members of that House directed the affairs of the nation for nothing. It was one of the peculiarities of the British Constitution that the only men who were considered not to be worth a salary were the men who directed the affairs of the country. The whole of the railway companies of the three kingdoms were an absolute trust—just as much a trust as the denounced Steel Trust and the Standard Oil Trust in America. Indeed, there was no such trust in existence as that of the railway companies of the three kingdoms. There was £1,300,000,000 of capital in the railway companies of Great Britain, and about £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 in those of Ireland. These companies were one great trust; they met in conference at certain times; they raised the rates to the public, who were powerless against them. At the present moment they had in Great Britain the highest railway

155
rates of any country in the world except Ireland, where they were higher than in England, with the result that in Ireland commerce was greatly handicapped. He could not understand why hon. Gentlemen should talk of tariff reform and protection in face of the fact that the railway companies allowed preferential rates to foreign competitors who brought their goods to this country. He had been a Member of the House for fifteen years, and he served on the Select Committee which inquired into the subject of railway charges and rates. The Committee had reported, but in that House there was an imperium in imperio—railway directors and railway shareholders, who would not allow any reform of the railway system to pass through. Ever since then he had been asking questions of various Presidents of the Board of Trade and of Prime Ministers with regard to the preferential rates which the railway companies allowed to foreign competitors. Why was it that the hon. Baronet, and any railway director in that House in favour of fiscal reform, allowed the continuance of this preference to the foreigner? He asked the hon. Baronet and the railway directors in the House to request the President of the Board of Trade to appoint a small Committee to inquire into these preferential rates and to report to the House the facts laid before them. There was no competition between our railway companies; each had what was called its sphere of influence; the country was divided into geographical areas, and the rates were settled by the companies in conference. Another great grievance was that relating to consignments, a grievance particularly felt in the case of the moving of Irish live stock. The Stock Owners' Association, when they wanted a through rate for consignments, were presented by the railway company with a document which recited at length every species of casualty which was likely to occur, in order that the company might be absolved from anything like liability. In the view of many eminent lawyers the document was not a legal one, though it was covered by the term "reasonable," a word most difficult of legal definition. The result in Ireland, according to the witnesses who gave evidence before
156
the Departmental Committee, was the loss of about half a million a year. He hoped that the result of the Viceregal Commission would be the recommendation of the nationalisation of the railways in Ireland. It would be a most useful experiment, and, as the railways in that country now stood, the present was a most suitable occasion for acquiring and nationalising them. If the railways could belong to the State in India there was no reason why they should not belong to the State in Ireland. The hon. Baronet had spoken of preparing the return's of the trade of different countries and Colonies separately. If it was desirable that Canada and the Colonies of Australia should be separately returned, why should not the trade of Ireland also be the subject of a Return separate from that of Great Britain? At present they had no means in Ireland of finding out what were their exports and their imports. They had no separate branch of the Board of Trade for Ireland. He was not advocating a separate Board of Trade for Ireland; they had too many Government Departments already, and he hoped they would be able to manage their own affairs, without any English Department, later on. Another subject on which he desired to offer an observation had reference to speculations in foodstuffs and raw material, or gambling in "futures." He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade, particularly in the case of foodstuffs, would do what he could to prevent this speculation or gambling in "futures" on the Stock Exchange. One hon. Member had stated that owing to the action of the Labour Party, conciliation boards had been formed, with arbitration, which more or less obviated the necessity for strikes. In his opinion it ought not to be the function of the Labour Party to establish those boards of conciliation. He had conversed with an Australian on the subject, and he found that in most other countries it was the Government who organised the boards of conciliation and provided the machinery for arbitration. But this great commercial country was apparently far behind any other country in the world in the provision of such machinery. It seemed to be nobody's business to develop the resources of

157
England, Scotland, Ireland or' Wales. It was left to the President of the Board of Trade, who was an. extremely able individual, and had done all he could, but the machinery at his disposal was not sufficient. He trusted that the few points he had mentioned in regard to Ireland would receive consideration. He hoped that the time was coming when in Ireland they would be allowed to do their own business, and when that time came they would apply themselves to the problem of the nationalisation of Irish railways, and thus show this country a useful lesson in economy of expenses.
*MR. REESsaid he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a small matter affecting the railway facilities in his constituency. As a rule he did not sympathise with the attacks which were made in the House upon the railways, most of which he thought very unreasonable, and he was bringing this question forward in the hope that the President of the Board of Trade might be able to put a word in at the right place, and not by any means in order to attack the Board of the Cambrian Railway, which under difficult circumstances maintained a very fair service, or the very efficient service of the London and North Western Railway. When they had the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade naturally they did not expect to have any grievances of any kind left in Wales. He often wondered whether St. George or St. David really was the patron saint of the Principality. Representations, however, had been made to him by tradesmen in Newtown that when they forwarded goods to Liverpool they were often very much delayed on the way. They also complained that when they made claims against the railway company they frequently had good reason to be dissatisfied with the result. The claims made by them as a rule were extremely moderate and yet they had not been able to get satisfaction. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see that the tradesmen of Newtown were well looked after in this respect in the future. He mentioned specific cases of delay in respect of fish, flowers, and other perishable goods. That was the particular matter
158
about which he wished to press the right hon. Gentleman to intervene for the protection of his constituents. The hon. Member for the Bosworth division had deprecated the idea of the railway fares in London being raised. He wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any power to force a railway company to carry on its business at a loss. He did not believe that any Government Department possessed any such power. [Cries of "Why not?"] The hon. Member opposite had referred to the amount of capital invested in railways and he had described the different companies as meeting together in secret conclave and making arrangements for the restriction of free competition. If they were really doing that then they were most inefficient people, for they utterly failed to accomplish their object. He found from a Return issued by the Board of Trade that the capital invested in railways in this country in 1905 amounted to £1,282,000,000 and that only £3 27 per cent. was paid as interest on the whole of that capital. Out of thirty-nine companies the stocks of only about nine stood a o. e par, and that was not a record of great prosperity. It seemed to him that they could not expect railway companies to carry passengers or goods at a loss, since they were business, and not charitable, institutions, and considering the amount of capital invested the return was very small indeed. The fact ought not to be overlooked that the proprietors of railway companies were not rich persons, because quite 60 per cent. of the shareholders held less than £500 of stock. Speaker after speaker in this debate had referred to the railway companies as rolling in prosperity, as if they had no competition to face. That, however, was not the case, because competition was very severe, and that was why the return on the capital invested was so exceedingly small. The hon. Member for Chester had referred to the nationalisation of railways, and he had mentioned in this connection that railways in India were State property. No deduction of any sort could be drawn from that in favour of the nationalisation of railways, because the capital in India belonged to Government from the beginning, or

159
when that was not the case interest was guaranteed, and the Indian railways were at once strategic and commercial.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think I must rule out of order the nationalisation of railways, because that is a question which would require legislation, and the discussion of matters requiring legislation is not in order.
*MR. REESsaid that on this subject he was following the example of other speakers, but he apologised for transgressing the rules of order as now laid down. All he wished to say on this point was that vast sums of money had been spent on the Uganda railway, and the Government might prevent such expenditure in future and conduce to the development of railways in British possessions by encouraging private enterprise instead of spending such a large amount per mile out of the public purse. The spirit displayed in the debate did not conspicuously encourage private enterprise. It had been stated by one hon. Member that the President of the United States in his message to Congress condemned great railway combinations. That was perfectly true, but he also equally condemned attacks upon property. That the law of the United States had proved to be amply sufficient to deal with the question of combinations was clear from the case of the Northern Securities. An hon. Member had complained that on the District Railway and upon the Tube Railways there were not enough trains and not sufficiently long trains running during certain hours of the day. It must be evident that it was impossible for railway companies to run trains during the day time of the same length and so frequently as they did in the early morning and in the evening. Such trains would be run at an enormous loss in London in the middle of the day. Unless those railway companies economised in the day time it would be impossible for them to pay any dividends at all. Many of the railway companies were actually carrying passengers at a loss at the present moment, and in sheer justice to their proprietors were bound to raise their rates. In conclusion, he
160
would like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee whether he had any autocratic power to compel any railway company to carry passengers or goods at a loss?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said that with regard to the grievance which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs he would undertake to have inquiries made into the matters referred to. He had received a letter from the hon. Member which presented the matter very clearly, and he would give it his attention. As the hon. Member was aware, his powers in these matters as President of the Board of Trade were not very great, but he would undertake to make representations to the railway companies concerned. But before he came to the general question of railways, he would like to reply on some matters of general interest which had been referred to by his hon. friend the Member for the Bosworth division of Leicestershire, who congratulated the country on the great boom in trade. The facts were very well known to the House, and he need not dwell upon them. There was no doubt that we in common with two or three other manufacturing countries had had a very considerable boom in trade, and the only observation he would make in regard to that was that, judging from the Returns given to the Board of Trade, this country, at any rate, had had a larger proportion of the international trade than almost any of our competitors in the market. In the Returns for the first five months of the present year it was matter for congratulation to find that, while the increase in import trade had been about a million, the export trade had increased by £20,000,000. Official reports indicated that the state of employment in the country was satisfactory, the building trade being the exception, as it often was, and several reasons could be assigned for it. Among other reasons was the fact that much building was carried on by speculative builders, who were dependent on the state of the money market. With a large demand for money for commercial development, the prices for materials went up, but eventually the building

161
trade would share in the general prosperity. So far as could be judged, though it was almost as difficult to forecast trade as to forecast the weather, the prospects were good, and there was no probability of reaction. He agreed that we had reason to rejoice at the prosperity in German and American trade, for it meant, as the Returns showed, a substantial increase of our export trade to those countries. Trade was good, with every prospect of continuance for some time to come. The percentage of unemployed workmen had gone down very considerably, and there had been a considerable increase in wages. He was glad to think that this increase of something like £5,000,000 in the year was not the result of any great disputes, but the result of accommodation and arrangement between workmen and employers. He was glad to think that workmen were participating in the general trade boom.
SIR J. BRUNNER: And using their wages well.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, the liquor bill was not going up as a few years ago used to be the case as trade improved. Some sound criticism had been directed to the form and manner of the Returns issued by the Board of Trade. There was much to be said in favour of issuing a further series of fiscal Blue-books, and he quite agreed that these publications' should impartially put forward all available facts in relation to the fiscal controversy. In the monthly White-books on imports and exports it had been said much was lacking in regard to classification, and he had felt that himself. A Committee had been appointed under the Trade Census Act to consider this subject, and report to the larger Committee which would sit in the autumn. At the same time, it would be a mistake to be continually making changes in these White-books, because their value was for purposes of comparison, and if changes were made from month to month, or even from year to year, they would become so complicated and obscure as to become worthless to those who examined them, comparing year with year. The question of values of imports and ex-ports was an important one. The ex-
162
port values were estimated on the goods put on board; but the value of the goods brought in was not the value as they left the country from which they were exported, but plus freight, insurance, and commission, so that the figures on the face of the return as payments to a foreign country often included payments made to people in this country. It was worth while considering whether some improvement could be made in the Returns in this connection. He wished to say another word in regard to trade. His hon. friend had suggested that, instead of consuls, we should have agents in foreign markets who would be practically our trade and commercial representatives. That was a very big question, and one with which the Board of Trade was not solely concerned. But the Board of Trade by arrangement and in conjunction with the Foreign Office had done a great deal to improve matters in this respect within the last few months, and he hoped that they would be able to continue to do so. They also, as a result of what passed at the Colonial Conference, where attention was called to the fact that every other country but our own had trade representatives in the Colonies, had decided, after consultation with the Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade, to set up a system of commercial agents, who would correspond with the consuls in foreign countries, and attend to the interest of trade in the Colonies. The Board of Trade would thus have reported to them what was going on in the Colonies, which were such valuable markets to us, and the Colonies would be kept informed of markets to which they could send their goods in this country. He trusted that it would be to the mutual advantage of the Colonies and ourselves to have representatives of this character, who would be doing their best for the development of our trade with them and of their trade with us. In the course of the last twelve months commercial missions had been sent to Germany, France, and Belgium, to inquire into the industrial conditions of those countries and get at the facts in regard to the wages paid to the working classes, their hours of labour, their food and other commodities consumed by them, the rents of their houses, and generally to

163
report on their industrial development. They also had made inquiry in regard to railways in those countries. He attached great importance to that, because the railways, in his opinion, had a great deal more to do with the development of countries than we were sometimes ready to admit. It would be of little use having these inquiries made abroad unless similar inquiries were made in this country, and the Board of Trade had taken steps to accumulate a great mass of facts bearing on social and industrial conditions at home. To the voluntary wages census the employers had responded liberally and well. The returns upon a similar census in 1886 only covered 1,500,000 workmen. The returns under the new census already received by the Board of Trade covered at least 3,000,000 of workmen. He attached very great importance to those returns, and considered that they would be of the utmost possible value when they came to consider many important questions relating to commerce and industry. Another step which the Board of Trade had taken was to institute investigations in great industrial centres throughout Great Britain and Ireland into the standard wages in the most important trades, the cost of living, the wages paid, the hours worked, rent of workmen's houses, and, indeed, all the facts that bore on the condition of the working people in those districts. The f acts when published would contain more valuable and more reliable information on matters of the greatest moment to the industries of the country than, probably, any volume hitherto published in this country. The work had been done very carefully by the most skilled investigators, and he could assure the Committee that it had been done impartially, without. any sort of view of proving this or that theory or idea. Once they started that principle, they vitiated the whole of the returns. Investigators simply inquired into the facts, and gathered them together in leaflets. Some newspapers wrote articles in regard to the state of the trade, commerce, industry, and labour here and there in the country, but those statements were believed everywhere except in the districts to which they were intended to apply. The Board of Trade had done their very best to get at the real con-
164
dition of things, and their report might be accepted without suspicion as absolutely impartial. He could not help thinking that the statistical side of the Board of Trade was exceedingly important from every point of view. It ought to be regarded as the Intelligence Department of the commerce and industry of the country, and should be as efficient as the Intelligence Department in war. As to the census of production, he had promised in passing the Bill last year that it should be conducted in away which would harass traders in a minimum degree. First of all, the Board of Trade had set up a general Committee which he thought was impartial and representative, but it was intended to appoint special Committees to deal with special trades, because he could quite understand that there might be trades which would not give information involving the divulging of trade secrets. These inquiries would really be conducted for the assistance of the different trades, and not to do them any harm. What was wanted was only to ascertain the actual facts. Now he came to the question of the railways. He agreed that no question could engage the attention of the House which was of more importance to the trade and industry of this country than that of railway transport. A question had been put to him in regard to owners' risks, which he could not answer without coining under the Chairman's condemnation. He only hoped that the Bill dealing with owners' risks, which had already gone through the Committee upstairs, would pass this session if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London did not show a too eager desire to improve all the Bills introduced by the Government. He was sorry that the hon. Baronet did not show the same industry in improving the. Bills introduced by the late Government. As to railway rates and the rebate system on certain railways, his hon. friend knew his views on that subject. In so far as the arrangement was made for the purpose of destroying competition between the railway companies and of preventing rates being reduced to the trader, he thought it was a bad arrangement, because, after all, if the present system was maintained the public ought to get the benefit of it.

165
As his hon. friend the Member for North-ants had said, there were two possible systems to be adopted. We might have a system of railways run by private enterprise, or we might have a system, such as that which prevailed in Germany, in India, and in some of our Colonies, of State-owned railways. The advantage of the first system was that they got the competition between the railway companies, and that seemed to him to be one of the greatest advantages which ought to be derived from the system. The public ought, he thought, to get the benefit of open competition, but if the public were to lose all the advantage of private ownership, without securing any of the advantage of the public ownership, then he thought the people would have to reconsider its whole action towards the railway and transport system of the country. That was all he could say without trenching upon the domain of legislation; but in regard to administration, so far as the Board of Trade's jurisdiction could be exercised it would be exercised, he trusted, in order to prevent the railway companies depriving the trader of any advantage he enjoyed under the present system and to which he was entitled.
SIR F. CHANNINGinquired as to the subject of ensuring publicity for the agreements as to combination.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would take steps, so far as he could do so. He had addressed communications to the railway companies as to the arrangements they had entered into; they had replied, and these replies had been published and were in the possession of the House of Commons. Any other point which the hon. Gentleman wished to put to the railway companies he; would lie glad to put. They had never denied information, and when a request had been sent by the Board of Trade he could not recall an occasion on which they had not given an answer which was consistent with the facts of the case. Coming to the important question raised by the hon. Member for Stockport in regard to railway accidents, he was sorry to say this was the worst year for five or six years, largely owing to the great accidents
166
of Grantham, Salisbury, and Arbroath. As far as accidents to railway servants were concerned, there had been a great improvement during the last few years. But still the number of accidents was deplorable, and he thought it was the business of the Board of Trade to do what they could to reduce the number. They had appointed a Committee to look into the question of either-side brakes and automatic couplings. He was sorry that the inspecting officer of the Board of Trade had come to the conclusion that the experiments in automatic couplings which had been made were not a success. Whether it was possible to find some other device which would protect the railway servants engaged in these dangerous coupling operations he did not know, but the Committee was still prosecuting its inquiries, which would take some time, because they involved practical experiments, not merely experiments with models.
*MR. WARDLEinquired whether he was to understand that anything had been done by the Committee with regard to automatic couplings.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had no right to express a conclusion on the matter, but the inspecting officer had gone into the question and come to the conclusion that they were not a success. He regretted this and he was sure the railway companies did. These casualties ran into hundreds and thousands, and must cost them a considerable sum in the way of compensation, much more than they would have to spend in any device for preventing them. But the pecuniary consideration, he was sure, was the last view they took of the matter, because, after all, these men were in their employment, and he was sure they would do all they could to prevent casualties. Two or three suggestions had been made during the debate that the number of inspectors should be increased. He did not want unnecessarily to increase the number of inspectors, but if it could really be proved that an increase in the number would materially reduce the loss of human life he would be quite willing to look into the matter. He must say he thought

167
the Board of Trade inspectorate was understaffed. As to hours of labour, excessive hours had probably a good deal to do with some of the accidents which had occurred. They had a useful debate earlier in the session initiated by his hon. friend the Member for North East Derby, who brought forward a number of cases to prove that the hours of labour were excessive, and, he must say, oppressive on some of the railways of this country, especially on the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Great Central, and the Midland Railway Companies. He had seen some of the managers of these railways, and they were quite candid about the matter. They did not deny the facts; they admitted the state of things, and undertook to do their best to reduce the hours of labour. However, that was not sufficient, and during that debate he promised that he would take further steps to bring pressure, within the powers that he possessed, to bear upon the railway companies substantially to reduce the excessive hours, and he said that if the powers he possessed were inadequate he would certainly come to Parliament to strengthen them. As a result he singled out some of the worst cases, and instead of demanding a return once every quarter, which came in very late, he asked for reports rather of special districts considered to be bad. In some of the worst cases three inspectors of the Board of Trade had been sent down to make inquiries. They did not go down merely on the complaint of railway servants. They went down to districts where they had good reason to believe that workmen were being worked excessive hours. They saw the men in the absence of their officials; and they saw the officials and obtained very full and frank statements. No names were taken down; and only a general note, was taken of the result of the inquiries. The result in some cases was rather bad. On the Midland, the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the Great Central Railways the result was very bad. There was some substance in the excuse which the railway companies put forward. It was the difficulty they had of coping with the enormous increase in the trade of their districts, and especially in the coal trade. There were train loads standing for hours because
168
they could not get along, and they could not deal with the congestion. Sometimes they got stuck in places where the men could not get food. Major Pringle reported one case in which a man had been ten hours without food after he had been twelve hours on duty. Some of these cases were perfectly in human —men working for fifteen, sixteen, and, in some cases, seventeen hours. The railway companies pleaded that they had great difficulty in finding men. This year thirty-eight Army Reservists were recommended to the Midland Company, he thought it was, for employment. Of that number twenty-two did not reply to the communications sent to them, nine refused the situation because they were not satisfied with the wages, four were refused on account of eyesight, one could not be found, and only two were employed. That showed the difficulty of the railway companies. The real reason was that the men could get better wages in other employment. On the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway some of the cases were very bad. In Wigan during last winter 47 per cent. of the employment was in excess of twelve hours; in Accrington, 16 per cent.; in Goole, 23 per cent.; in Wakefield, 36 per cent.; and in Bury, 33 per cent. The Board of Trade had done their best in these cases, and they had received the utmost assistance from the Railway Company. In. Wigan the 47 per cent. had been reduced to 3 per cent.; in Accrington the 16 per cent. had been reduced to 1 per cent.; in Goole the 23 per cent. had been reduced to 4 per cent.; in Wakefield the 36 per cent. had been reduced to 8 per cent.; and in Bury the 33 per cent. had been reduced to 1·4 per cent. The Great Central Company had also met the Board of Trade, and in some of the worst cases, where there was a very high percentage before the inquiry, there was now hardly any excess at all. He wished he could say as much for the Midland Company. The reduction they had effected was not at all satisfactory. What the Lancashire and Yorkshire and the Great Central Companies had achieved ought also to have been accomplished by the Midland Company. He trusted they would not make it necessary for the Board of Trade to press them any further, or to take steps which they would be

169
bound to take under the powers given them and under the obligations cast upon them by Act of Parliament. He thought a strong case had been made out in regard to superannuation funds, but it was a matter upon which he must consult the Treasury and the other Departments concerned, because he rather thought the Registrar of Friendly Societies came in here. The inquiry to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Northwich had referred was being pressed on. He had always been impressed with the importance of railway transport in the development of the trade and industry of the country. He was not sure that the railway companies would not welcome an inquiry into the subject. Pressure was being brought to bear upon them to curtail the hours of labour, to reduce railway rates, to reduce fares, and to provide workmen's trains. There must be a limit unless the country was prepared to take the risk which these demands involved. Owing to circumstances for which the companies were not altogether responsible, the railways in this country had cost an enormous sum of money. The shareholders put their money into these investments, and they had to consider the return on the whole of the investments in the railway companies; he did not think that it was unfair to do that. Some companies were doing well, some badly, but if they took the average return on the whole of the companies, in his judgment it was not an extravagant one. He did not mean to say that the country had not a right to say that it must have these full facilities. We must have railway rates reduced, we must have the hours of labour, cut down to a certain point, we must achieve workmen's fares, we must put an end to the system which developed foreign countries at the expense of our own. He was certain that if all this was to be achieved for a great public purpose, it ought not to be achieved at the expense of the investor, because he was sure that it would not be in the interests of the country itself. Let them take the question of the shortening of the hours of labour, which was really, so far as he had been able to discover, not so much a question of the desire of the railway companies to get as much as they could out of the
170
men, as it was a question of their being able to get them to work up to a point at which other workmen could be put on. That resolved itself into a question of an increased number of sidings, increased accommodation, doubling the number of rails, increasing the rolling stock, and the supply of other necessary facilities which constituted the real means by which to reduce the hours of labour. These were all questions which meant more capital. The London and North Western had most successfully coped with the question of railway hours, but that was a rich company, able to spend money which other railway companies could not possibly afford; they could provide facilities and they could meet these demands; but many other companies could not. And that was why he said that he was not loth that these matters should be pressed; for he thought it absolutely monstrous that a man should work seventeen, fourteen or thirteen, hours a day, and he had it officially that a man worked twelve hours, the whole day, without getting any food at all. Surely these things were a perfect disgrace to a great industrial country like ours, highly developed and highly organised. At the same time, if these things were to be remedied, and the country made up its mind that they were to be dealt with as a great question of public policy, then the people who benefited by it ought to bear the burden, and they ought to be prepared to face it. They faced it in other countries. They faced it in New Zealand, in Australia, in Germany to a very large extent, and in Belgium, and we had got to face it here if the question had to be dealt with effectively. At the same time, until that was done, he thought that they must proceed cautiously, otherwise they would be preventing the accomplishment of the objects which they all had in their minds. That was why he was prosecuting inquiries into how these things were worked abroad. He would appeal to both sides of the House to approach these questions purely from the point of view of what was best for the trade of the country. These were not controversial matters, at least they ought not to be, for the moment they became controversial he was sure that much harm would be done, and

171
he would be very glad if they could be kept out of the region of controversy. Trade and commerce ought not to be a Party question; they ought to be able to approach these questions in a non-Party spirit, and he was perfectly sure that if that were done they would be able to accomplish what would be in the general interests of the country. Before he sat down he wished to reply to a question which had been asked in reference to the protection of the watch trade in this country. He had made inquiries with reference to the watch-making trade done in this country by persons abroad, and this was the kind of information which he got. We had in this country the provision that a gold watch made and sold by the British manufacturer was to be really gold, and not merely a thin layer of gold over base metal—not a covering of gold thinner than a wafer through which one could easily push the point of a pin. The British-made watch had to be of gold —the dome plates and all the essential parts of the watch had to be of gold; that was the law of the land. But a foreign watch, with this thin covering of gold over base metal in all the essential parts, could be sold in this country as gold. That was purely a fraud on the purchaser, and had nothing to do with the fiscal question; it was simply a protection of the consumer here against fraud, and all they had to do in that case was to see that the same measure of justice was applied to the foreign trader who came to this country as we applied to our own trader. That had been done since 1st June, and it had been left to this Government to do. They had not discriminated against the foreigner, but in future the same measure would be applied to the foreigner as to the British trader. The foreign trader who came here had to subject his watch to the same tests as were imposed upon the British-made article. Another question was with regard to inspectors. It was suggested that inspectors should be sent prowling around to detect these frauds.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is what you do in regard to the adulteration of food
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that that was a different thing; the adulteration of food affected the health and life of the people, who must be protected. The Chamber of Commerce had made the same suggestion in regard to inspection as his hon. friend, but when they had come to consider it they saw that it was really impracticable. ["They changed their minds?"] They changed their minds. ["Again?"] He did not think again. They were dropping inspection, and the first thing they had to do was to prosecute in cases of fraud. He thought he had satisfied the deputation which he had received that all that could be done was to prosecute wherever there was a fraud of this kind, It was the duty of the Board of Trade to prosecute whenever a case was reported not merely in this country but abroad. In regard to articles of this character sold abroad as British goods he thought it was the duty of the Board of Trade to protect the British trader in those circumstances also. He was much obliged to his hon. friend for the very kind things he said about the administration of the Board of Trade. He had done the very best he could in the short time he had been at the Board of Trade for the trade and industries of the country. He thought that there was a great deal which could be done by administration to assist the commerce of the country, and that by means of obtaining information which would be of use to our traders with regard to what was going on abroad among our foreign competitors, with regard to possible fields of operation, and in regard to the protection of our trade and commerce, much could be usefully done in the promotion of our interests, and he would be very glad to do that work to the very utmost of his power.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he was sure that he was only expressing the feeling of the House when he said that the right hon. Gentleman had no reason to apologise for the length of his speech, which was interesting throughout to all who heard it. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman had thrown out a challenge which

173
in other circumstances he would have been bound to accept. In dealing with trade the right hon. Gentleman had made remarks which were undoubtedly intended to show that our system was better than others as borne out by the statistics which he had obtained. The Committee would give him credit for saying that he did not wish to raise that issue at the present moment, because he thought that it could not be usefully pressed now.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had not raised the fiscal question in what he had said.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the export of manufactured goods from this country was greater than that of any other country.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; I did not say that.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid he had certainly thought the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to raise the question; he was willing to let it drop so far as the present discussion was concerned. There were other aspects of the subject which, from his own experience at the Board of Trade, he would rather speak about. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken at some length and with some interest about the efforts which he had made and was making that the Board of Trade should become the intelligence department of trade and commerce in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had said a great deal about the statistics of that department, and with every word that he had said in regard to these matters he thoroughly agreed. Indeed, he would far rather have at the head of this particular department a right hon. Gentleman who was constantly making demands for something to be done than one who did nothing and simply allowed things to drift. He was not going to pay compliments to the right hon. Gentleman, but, whatever else might be said about him, at any rate it could not be said that he had been doing nothing; for he had been doing a good deal in spite of the discouragements which had
174
been placed in his way. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would continue to realise that when every other country was organising its trade on the same principle as its Army, it was our business also to do exactly the same, and to see that we did not suffer in the competition. That brought him to what used to be considered a hardy annual when he was at the Board of Trade, for there never was a discussion on the Board of Trade Vote in which the question of appointing a Minister of Commerce was not raised. A great deal had been heard in the debates and otherwise about the appointment of a Minister of Commerce; but he thought that President of the Board of Trade was as good a title as that of Minister of Commerce. On the other hand, he was of opinion that for a country like ours, which depended more than any other country upon its trade, to have the department responsible for trade and commerce as a second-rate office was a disgrace to the country and not to be tolerated. It was no use talking to the right hon. Gentleman about that, because if he took any action in the matter it would look like asking for an increase in his own salary. It was, however, the duty of hon. Members to press the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's position on the Prime Minister and on the members of the Government. The Board of Trade stood constantly between capital and labour, but it stood in many instances where it had no power. From that point of view it was extremely important that the man who filled the office should have weight on his own account as well as weight in connection with the office he filled. It might be said that the department had been provided with good men in the past at a salary of £2,000 as compared with £5,000. He had not found that to be so in any other phase of human activity with which he was acquainted. For a second-rate office they might get a good statesman, but they only got his services while on the road to promotion, and such a man never came back to the office. This, then, was a question which the whole House might usefully press on the Government. In regard to the railways, when he represented the Board of Trade he found that everyone was ready to attack them and no one,

175
except the directors, was inclined to defend them. He had come early to the conclusion, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be driven to the same conclusion, that it was his business in the public interest to protect the railways in the House rather than to stimulate the hostility which was so often directed against them. The right hon. Gentleman was right when he said at the opening of a tube railway the other day that railway companies could not be carried on to the best advantage of the public if they were carried on at a loss. Unless they caused the public to look upon the railways as a fair investment, they would not be able to get new capital, and, instead of improving, the railways would get worse, while the service would be seriously injured by the constant habit of nagging at them. The speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for East Northampton shire was an attack upon the railway companies because they had tried to make arrangements to save expense and remove unnecessary competition. The argument of all those who attacked the companies was that they were doing away with all forms of competition and injuring trade by taking away rebates. He could quite understand why the hon. Member for Leicester felt strongly upon that matter, because a system of rebates was not in the interests of the general trader. In respect of rebates, the big trader could put pressure on the railway company, and he received special advantages which gave him a pull over the smaller competitor; he used all his influence to prevent the company from making arrangements to reduce expenditure and thus to benefit everyone connected with the service. Where he lived in Scotland there were two railways, the Caledonian and the North British, and they both ran a service of trains between Edinburgh and Glasgow. He found that the trains went from both stations generally about the same hour, and they competed with each other in a way which was to their own disadvantage as well as to the disadvantage of the public. If the companies were encouraged to do what they could to reduce expense by saving unnecessary competition, more money would be available to spend on the general improvement of the system.
176
It ought, therefore, to be the duty of the representatives of the railwaymen, and he had pointed this out to the hon. Member for Derby, to prevent the companies from being attacked when no good service was to be derived to the public from the attack. The right hon. Gentleman would find that in some system of saving unnecessary competition lay the. best future for the railway companies. The companies' rates were fixed by Act of Parliament, and, if they could save expense in competition, they would be enabled to give better terms to traders all round, as well as to the travelling public, and have something to give their shareholders in the way of dividends to encourage fresh capital being put into the undertakings. Lately the right hon. Gentleman had been speaking about tube railways. These tube railways were a lesson to the House. When the measures establishing these railways were being carried through the House the President of the Local Government Board over and over again denounced the syndicates as monopolies that were being formed to take money out of the hands of the citizens of London, who ought, he said, to run these railways for themselves. But what did they find now? The tube railways were financially a complete failure. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the London County Council would have managed them better?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD, Mr. JOHN BURNS.)said the right hon. Gentleman, he was sure unintentionally, had entirely misrepresented his views with regard to tube railways. He had always held the view that they would never be successful because they were not adapted to the peculiar form of traffic and to the habits of London people. He knew that on one occasion he suggested that intending investors had better be careful before embarking their money upon tube railways. No doubt the hon. Member would recollect that he stated that ten or fifteen years hence it would be found necessary on the part of the owners of the tube railways to sell them to the London County Council, or at least to sell some of them, for storm sewers.
MR. BONAR LAW: That is not my recollection of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude.
*MR. JOHN BURNS: But it is a fact.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid they were attacked, he knew, by many hon. Members of the House on the ground that they could be more successfully carried on by local bodies, but the result showed that the reverse was the case. What the House, in the general interest, had to consider was that speculation was not the business either of the State or of the municipality. If they gave private enterprise a fair run for its money, if they had a failure here and a success there, then private enterprise would be. encouraged to undertake enterprises which were to the advantage of the public and run the risks. He thought that that in the end would be to the general advantage of the community.
*MR. McCRAEasked whether the President of the Board of Trade had made similar inquiries in Scotland into the hours which were being worked by railway servants on the Scottish railways. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman had had placed before him some flagrant instances of overtime worked in Scotland.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that there had been only one case in regard to the railways in Scotland where the hours of work were long. They had looked into the subject, and, if the answers to their representations were not satisfactory, the Department would certainly institute an inquiry on the spot.
MR. WARD: thought the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich furnished the most cogent argument in favour of the nationalisation of railways. The hon. Member had said that the reason why there could not be any reduction in railway rates and fares was because there were often two railways running into one locality, with the result that they had two trains going to the same place at the same time.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the
178
Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

KING EDWARD'S HOSPITAL FUND FOR LONDON BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES.)
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £184,484, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments," resumed.
MR. WARD, continuing his speech, said the illustration which had been given only amounted to this, that we had the most antiquated methods of conducting our railways. Probably the system was satisfactory enough in the forties and fifties, when railways were a novelty and did not enter so much into the life of the nation as they did at the present time, but it was totally unsuited to modern requirements. He held that these institutions should be under the control of one authority, in order that the present useless expense incurred by the companies might be obviated and the benefit given to those who wanted their merchandise conveyed from place to place. He wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the position of a very great and important section of the industrial community. While some of the public works of the country so far as inspection, etc. was concerned were under the control of the Home Office, fortunately or unfortunately railways, docks and canals, etc., when in course of construction came within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. When in actual use docks were properly inspected by the Home Office, these structures on completion being regarded under the Factories Acts as factories, and the

179
admission had been made that it was peculiar that they should not come under that Department when in course of construction. In spite of the fact that there might be a thousand or two thousand, or even—as in the case of Barry—three thousand men working in a limited space, constructing a dock and manipulating very complicated and dangerous machinery, no one seemed to have the power of inspection. The Home Office asserted that the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, placed inspection and regulation, especially in regard to inquiry into accidents, in the hands of the Board of Trade, and that Department seemed absolutely to have forgotten that fact. They had never had an inspection, although great railways in course of construction should have been under their control for fourteen or fifteen years, and they had never appointed an inspector. There were some 300,000 men permanently employed on these works, and not the slightest attention was paid to their welfare so long as periodical inspection of the works they were engaged upon was concerned. Could he not persuade the President of the Board of Trade that it was nearly time some inspectors were appointed by his Department, so that these men might have the common protection given by factory and other legislation to the workmen employed in other industries? Sir John Jackson, in opening the great docks at Devonport, which cost nearly four millions of money, stated that although every precaution had been taken by his firm to avoid serious accidents, he was sorry to say the fatalities amounted to something between thirty and forty per million of money spent, and that the men who had been so seriously injured as to be incapacitated from future employment were so numerous that the firm had not even kept a record of them. That was a very serious position of affiars. These men were neither one thing nor the other. They did not come under the Factory Acts, the Home Office had nothing to do with them, and the Board of Trade would only consider them when absolutely compelled to do so by reason of a serious accident. He thought they should try to do something to avoid accidents rather than merely investigate them after they had occurred. When-
180
ever important works were begun the contractors had to erect a whole system of hospitals, knowing perfectly well that the work could not be carried out without enormous mortality to the men engaged on them. He thought the matter was one that should be dealt with by the State without delay.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's division of Dublin had suggested that the time had arrived when a Shipping Department should be established entirely separate from railways and other matters. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman that the shipping industry was the greatest industry in the country; but last year they had no opportunity of discussing it, and this year they were only to have an hour and a half that evening. That was not a satisfactory state of things; they ought to have more time for the discussion of everything connected with the mercantile marine. In regard to the salary of the President of the Board of Trade he thought it was not sufficient for the office which the right hon. Gentleman filled. He did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should receive a salary of only £2,000, while other Cabinet Ministers got £4,000 or £5,000. He wished to urge the Government to establish in connection with the Board of Trade a separate Department for the mercantile amrine. The Department should have the chief control of all the documents relating to the mercantile marine and be able to search carefully through the log books of every ship at the end of each voyage. He found that the Department was worked at a less cost by£6,000 than it was ten years ago, while the amount of work to be done by it had been increasing. Men who were getting £150 to £170 used to get from £400 to £500 for doing exactly the same work. He understood that the Treasury was at the root of this economy, and the grievances of the men ought to be carefully inquired into and put right. He knew of one man who had been thirty-five years in the Department, who had only between 35s. and 40s. a week, which was not sufficient for the very important work he had to perform. He had urged the establishment of a central

181
register for keeping a record of the engagements of every seaman in the mercantile marine. The Government spent as much money on registers at various ports at present as would be sufficient for the maintenance of a central register. At the present time, if the parents, wife, or friends of a seaman wanted to ascertain his whereabouts they had to communicate with every port in the United Kingdom, and the superintendent in each port had to reply to the Registrar-General; whereas, if there were a central register, as provided for by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1852, it would be much easier to obtain all the information required. He believed that at one time a central register was kept, and he could not understand why it was not still kept as provided for by law. Supposing a shipowner in the case of a collision wanted to find the whereabouts of a particular man who had been on board one of the ships in collision, he had no remedy but to write to every port in the Tinted Kingdom. That was a source of trouble and expense. Last year the Board of Trade took part in passing a law which provided that every seaman before he was entitled to the rating of A. B. must prove three years' sea service. That section of the Act came into force on the 1st June this year. It was naturally expected that the Board of Trade would make some effort to see that that law was enforced. He could not understand why a master, owner, or an agent of the owner should be allowed to take on as ordinary seamen or as deck men —he really did not know what deck men were —men who were not qualified. He remembered that at the Shipping Conference the Colonial delegates passed a resolution that the British Government should make a uniform rule as to the engagement of competent able seamen. They had been told that the Board of Trade had power to detain ships which were not properly manned. He remembered that in 1893, after a disastrous wreck and loss of life at Brandon, the Government appointed a Committee to investigate the question of undermanning. The Committee was, it was said, a representative one; but, like all Committees appointed by the Board of Trade, good care was taken to give the majority of votes to the shipowners,
182
and he was the only representative of the seamen. That Committee sat for over two years, and as a result of their Report a Bill was passed in 1897 providing that a vessel leaving the United Kingdom undermanned should be considered unseaworthy, and that any person who sent an undermanned ship to sea should be deemed guilty of an offence. The Committee further recommended that a manning scale should be adopted and passed into law. The Committee reported in 1896; in 1897 the Conservative Government approached the subject in a half-hearted way and said that if a vessel was leaving in an unseaworthy state because of undermanning it could be detained. Why had the Board of Trade not acted on the-recommendation of the Manning Committee that no ship over 700 tons gross tonnage should be allowed to leave a port in the United Kingdom on a foreign voyage with less than six deck hands four of the six to be recognised able seamen? That was the recommendation of the Manning Committee, and the Board of Trade had power to detain a ship on the ground of unseaworthiness because she was undermanned. What did the Board of Trade do? They sent out instructions to their superintendents that no ship over 700 tons should be allowed to proceed to sea with less than six deck hands. What did they mean by deck hands? The Manning Committee said that of these six deck hands four were to be able-bodied seamen, and why did not the Board of Trade insert that provision in their regulations? They had power to do so, and they ought to have seen that there were these qualified able seamen on the deck. He put a Question in the course of the week about a steamer which put to sea with six European sailors on board whose wages were £4 a month. After the first six months, however, a crew of Chinamen were engaged at the cheaper rate of £3 10s. When the Chinamen came to sign on under the new Act they could not prove three years sea service, and the Board of Trade obliged the owners by allowing them to sign on as ordinary seamen at the £3 10s. a month. In his reply to a Question the right hon. Gentleman said that the matter had been referred to the

183
surveyor, who reported that the men had been seen by him, and he was satisfied that they would be found capable of performing the usual duties of seamen. He (the surveyor) had tested them in moving the steamer in dock and found that they were capable of performing the ordinary duties of seamen. The task of moving a steamer in dock was one which boys could be entrusted with, but because they could do that it did not say that the Chinamen were efficient seamen. The surveyor added that according to the master's statement he had selected four of these men to act as helmsmen. There was a ship of 700 tons which was allowed to proceed to sea from a port in the United Kingdom with these incompetent Chinese seamen on board. In another case a steamer of 2,800 tons was allowed to proceed to sea from a port in the United Kingdom with six incompetent Chinese seamen who could not speak English on board as ordinary seamen. The inspecting officer said he was informed that the men had three years sea service, but who informed him or how did he ascertain that fact if he was not a linguist and did not speak the Chinese language? Most captains who had their certificates suspended got into that position by failing to use the lead, but how was an officer of a vessel to use the lead in dark and foggy weather when he had to deal with Chinamen who did not understand English? There was no excuse for the Board of Trade in this matter, because they had power to detain these ships but did not do so. He had also put another Question with regard to a ship called the "Siberian," one of the Allan Line, which had on board some 700 or 800 passengers. Under the Board of Trade manning regulations she should have had twenty-eight deck hands, including the officers, but she had only twenty-two, including eight qualified able seamen and twelve unqualified men. Why was this ship allowed to go to sea shorthanded? Was it safe to allow her to go to sea with twelve unqualified seamen, on whom the passengers would have to depend to take charge of the boats in case of emergency, instead i of able-bodied seamen? It was all very well for people to say that we did not want sailors nowadays because the men had only to wash decks and
184
polish brass work, but when it came to an emergency they must have competent men who would calm the fears of the passengers and get the boats out and handle them in a seamanlike manner. He had not exaggerated his case in saying that the responsibility for that rested on the right hon. Gentleman because of his surveyor having passed these unqualified persons. Then there was the case of the "Astoria," also from Glasgow. She had a small number of qualified, and a largo number of unqualified, sailors. She was supposed to carry thirty-five officers and men. She had twenty-eight, and out of those twelve or more were unqualified men. The surveyor in that case said he knew some of the men were seamen, and had been on the ship in her previous voyage. But why did not the surveyor satisfy himself that they were qualified, as it was his duty to do? He hoped now that attention had been called to these two ships a sharper look-out would be kept by the Board of Trade, and that the right hon. Gentleman would send out a notice that the law must be obeyed. What was the use of a law being made that a man should serve three years on board ship before he became an able seaman if the owners are allowed to sign men on as deck hands or seamen, or anything but able seamen? The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that under the Act undermanning was unseaworthiness. If this matter could not be dealt with by regulation ho (Mr. Wilson) would not rest until it was settled by legislation. With regard to the load-line, he was sorry to say that by the seamen, who believed he was responsible, the right hon. Gentleman had been cursed more than any man he ever knew. As a matter of fact the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible, but the seamen believed he was. The late Government in 1905 appointed a secret Committee composed of underwriters, and that Committee set to work to undo all the work of Samuel Plimsoll. They secured an alteration in the scale of the freeboard, and the alterations came into force just as the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman could not be held to blame. He thought that ought to be generally known throughout the country. He was not satisfied with these alterations, and told the right hon. Gentleman in March last that he would wait with patience to see what effect they had on

185
loss of life at sea. His right hon. friend had made one mistake. The right hon. Gentleman said in answer to a question put last year that these alterations would not affect the old type of ships. Shortly after that the "Lebanon," an old vessel, on which the load-line had been altered by 2½inches, foundered. He believed had there been no alteration in the load-line she would have been afloat to-day. The "Dulverton" had recently disappeared with all hands. She had not been heard of for two months and he feared would never be heard of again. The "Dulverton" shipped under the old load-line 6,500 tons and under the new load-line 7,884, and now she had disappeared. He could not say whether that was in consequence of the alteration of the load-line, but he had as much right to say it might be as anyone else to say that it was not. Had there been any advantage to the shipowners in the alteration of the load-line? It was true that ships carried 1,000,000 tons more in the course of the year, but freights had fallen. Therefore it had been of no advantage to the shipowners. But if the loss of life at sea was shewn to have increased, and he would be glad to have the figures for the two years from the right hon. Gentleman—
*MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I might be permitted to give them now. So far from there having been an increase in the loss of life after the alteration of the load-line there has been a decrease of something like 400. They were 1,466 under the old regulations and 1,079 under the new.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he was glad to hear that loss of life had not increased. At the same time he would remind his right hon. friend that the alteration of the load-line entailed hardships and suffering in many cases. It very often made all the difference in the seaworthiness of the ship. Reference had been made to the loss of life on railways, and it was stated that there were 40,000 men employed on railways. But on the sea there were 250,000. Even now, though there was a decrease in the loss of life, there was still room for improvement. He remembered the time when certain shipowners, at the period when there were 3,400 lives lost a year,
186
said that it could not be avoided, that it was the act of God.
MR. CHARLES WILSONasked the hon. Member if he would give a single instance of a man having lost his life through overloading. These accidents were largely attributable to the negligence of the officers navigating the ships.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid his hon. friend should read the Report of the Royal Commission. He was speaking from his own knowledge of the facts, and he did not need to read the Blue-books, but he could refer the hon. Gentleman to the book which would afford him the necessary information. In regard to the loss of life, he was proud to say that they had reduced it from 3,400 to 1,000 a year, and there was still room for improvement. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to the case of vessels which carried Chinamen on board. That was a very strong case indeed. Vessels carried about two Asiatics to one European. In the case of the vessel he had referred to it was not so. But ho could of course give the names of many ships which had gone to-sea during the past three weeks with unqualified men signed on. There was one other point. It was just about time that the Board of Trade were considering the insanitary condition of the forecastles-of vessels. The Committee would be surprised to know that more men died from consumption or diseases of the chest on board ship than on land. To his mind it was due to the insanitary condition of the forecastles. The ventilation was not proper. As a matter of fact, according to the Board of Trade regulations a seaman ought to be able to read in any part of the forecastle by the natural light. He had visited a great many ships, hundreds, perhaps thousands, and he had not found one ship out of ten where a man could read a paper in any part of the forecastle by the natural light. He hoped that the Board of Trade would not pass such ships in future, and that they would give definite instructions in reference to the subject. If the Board of Trade challenged him upon the point he was prepared to show them the ships which were not provided with this natural light. With reference

187
to ventilation, somehow or other it was thought that any kind of ventilation would do for the forecastle of a ship. If they put down a ventilator from the deck above it blew a gale of wind in the forecastle, and if it was near a poor fellow's bunk it blew on his head so terribly that he had to stuff up the ventilator with a pillow or some other material, with the result that there was no ventilation at all. He hoped that the Board of Trade would give greater consideration to this subject, because they could get perfect ventilation of a ship's forecastle at very little expense; it would cost the owners very little more in the construction of the ships and they would get better results. It was a very serious matter when they considered that these men were dying on board ship from consumption in greater numbers than were recorded on shore. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would cause inquiries to be made at the different ports where ships were being built, with a view to ensuring that some attention was given to these matters.
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OR TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport)said he would endeavour to answer the various points which had been raised. With reference to the ventilation of forecastles, the hon. Member seemed to suggest that the Board of Trade inspectors were not so diligently looking after the requirements of light and air as they should be, and was prepared to point out ships which were deficient in this particular. This matter had been sprung upon him as it were, but if the hon. Gentleman could give a case where he thought that the requirements were not as they should be, he would be very happy to be informed about it. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would take that as a satisfactory answer for the time being. He was not going to refer to the kindly observations of the hon. Member in regard to the services of his right hon. friend, nor to the increase of his salary which was suggested, because that would involve an increase of his own salary, and being an interested person, unfortunately he might come under the censure of some hon. Member if he were to say "Hear, hear," to the suggestion. His hon. friend had pointed out that the mercantile marine had become so important, and was so increasing in importance, that the time
188
had come when the Government should carefully consider the constitution of a separate Department for it, under a Minister of responsibility. The mercantile marine at the present time had a separate Department of the Board of Trade, under capable officials, with one or two responsible Parliamentary chiefs for the time being. But he was not at all inclined to disagree with the idea of his hon. friend of the growing importance of the mercantile marine of this country. Statistical information showed that as compared with the rest of the world we had nearly half the shipping tonnage, and therefore it was of supreme importance that matters relating to the mercantile marine shall be dealt with by an adequate Department. But the British Government, like most governments, were always both to increase the number of Ministers who had to be paid. Still, there was something in the suggestion not that he was, in saying that, in any responsible way committing himself to the suggestion which had been made on this difficult and very important point, though he was glad that his hon. friend had drawn attention to it. He could only suppose that the hon. Member in making the proposal was in a liberal vein, and that he really wanted to make another situation for a Minister with a good salary attached. The hon. Member had also referred to the salaries of the office of the Registrar-General, and had said that he was aware that the Department had made representations to the Treasury on the matter. A careful investigation had been made of all the branches of the Registrar's Department, and he thought from what had been learned that there was ground for consideration on the part of the Treasury as to the slowness of promotion from the lower to the higher grades. An inquiry was held in 1888 when it was found that the Department was overmanned. Drastic action was taken and the staff above the grade of the second (then lower) Division was reduced from thirty-five to twenty-two to be followed by further retirements. The numbers now stood at eleven, but the result of the action then taken had not yet been finally reached, and would not be reached until 1910. This blocked promotion from the lower to the more advanced grades, and, in the meantime, the work had enormously increased, and those who had survived the cutting down were not

189
able to cope with the superior work, and consequently the lower division staff were doing higher division work, with very much lower pay, which, of course, gave rise to a grievance. His hon. friend had put forward other details, and he would inquire into them. But it was far more a matter for the Treasury, and he hoped that his hon. friend would be satisfied with the representations which had been made, and as soon as they got a reply one way or the other, he would make it known. His hon. friend had brought forward this matter with great consistency, and he knew the opinion which the hon. Gentleman held that it would be of benefit to the State to have a central place in which to keep the records of seamen, and that in the long run it would be a saving of expense. The Committee appointed in 1899 to inquire into the question of continous discharge certificates for seamen came to the conclusion that the cost would certainly not be less than £5,000 to start a central register, and it would also involve an annual expenditure of £2,000 a year. Ho did not see what success they would meet with even if this expenditure was incurred. The Board of Trade were not desperately hostile to the idea, and they did not close the door upon that proposition. The Board of Trade were not unsympathetic, and the hon. Member might keep on bringing it before the House. The new Act of Parliament with reference to A.B. rating naturally took time to get into working order. The hon. Member had been early in his complaint. Under the new Act an A.B.'s qualification was deemed to be three years sea service, and he had to prove that service. That differed from the Act of 1894 under which no seaman was entitled to the rating of A.B. without he could prove four years service. While the hon. Member complained that the new regulations with regard to manning were not yet strictly enough carried out, the shipowners complained that they were being enforced with undue severity. When they found two opposite interests holding opposite views he did not think they could be far wrong in effecting an adjustment by taking a middle course. His hon. friend the Member for Middles-brough complained that when vessels were going out to sea a number of men whom he described as the off-scourings
190
of the ports and who were not efficient men were entered as dock hands and seamen. That accusation carried with it an imputation against the officers of the Board of Trade at the ports where those men signed on. Under the Act of 1897 undermanning was deemed to constitute unseaworthiness, and consequently the officers of the Board of Trade had the power to detain ships on the ground of unseaworthiness. If the hon. Member imputed that the superintendents were allowing men to be engaged who were not competent that meant that the ships were not being properly manned.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid that that he did not make any charge against the superintendents. His point was that the Board of Trade, by their regulations, were placing their officers in such a position that they must allow unqualified men to sign on. He was not making any charge against the officers.
*MR. KEARLEYsaid that simply meant that the Board of Trade were putting their officers in such a position that they were bound to allow unqualified men to be engaged. Did he think it was at all likely that his right hon. friend and himself would deliberately issue instructions of that character?
MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid that was not what he meant. What be did say was that in 1896 the Board of Trade issued regulations which permitted a ship to sign on men as deck hands who were not qualified. Those regulations were in force now, and if the present officials of the Board of Trade allowed those regulations to continue in force the responsibility for ships being allowed to go to sea manned with incompetent men must rest with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member.
*MR. KEARLEYasked his hon. friend to accept his assurance that they were watching this matter most carefully. A change had been made, and it might be that the very thing they had done with the intention of strengthening the mercantile marine would prove illusory, and they might find a worse state of things after the passing of the Act than existed before. The Board of Trade would not be satisfied with that state of things. They meant to have the ships properly manned. He

191
believed the shipowners were most anxious to man the ships properly, but, if the Government found that the only way in which they could secure that object was by the introduction of a manning scale, they would not hesitate to introduce it. With regard to the load-line, they had the satisfaction of knowing that the new regulations had led to a great diminution in the loss of life at sea. He hoped his hon. friend would be satisfied with the reply he had given. He could assure him that they were watching the matter very carefully, and they would do all they could to see that the mercantile marine was properly manned.
MR. WILKIEsaid that last year when a change of Government took place some of them thought that they had got in the right hon. Gentleman an ideal President of the Board of Trade and an ideal Parliamentary Secretary, but he feared the influence of the permanent officials had been too strong even for the present President of the Board of Trade, from whom so much had been expected. While in the past they had been delighted with the right hon. Gentleman's speeches throughout the country, judging from some of the speeches he had made from the Government Benches, one would imagine that he was a railway director, or a shipowner, instead of the energetic Member for Carnarvon. They expected when they elected such an advanced Government that they would have these matters set right. He had upstairs last session advocated some improvements which were necessary in the manning of vessels with the view to the safety of life and property at sea. The last Liberal Government considered the question of manning, and he found that recommendations of which they approved went beyond what the present Government were apparently prepared to accept. He would suggest that those who wished to inform themselves as to the necessity for the better manning of ships should read the evidence which was given before the Committee that inquired into the subject. For instance, the captain of the "Marlborough" writing in reference to the vessels being over-loaded and undermanned said —
"I am not very soon frightened, but I do not see why my wife should be made a widow
192
in order that another man should handle a. little coin, I know he needs."
He had been some time without a ship, and his father persuaded him to give her another trial. The father never saw his son again, for the ship disappeared. The cases were innumerable which proved the necessity for a proper scale of manning. In the interest of seagoing labour the Government ought to deal with this-grievous question. In shipping legislation which had already been passed, provisions were included requiring that captains, mates, engineers, and cooks, should be properly certificated; but the ship constructor, who knew the construction of his ship, and was the most required of all, especially in cases of stress and storm, was not even required to be carried, or to be certificated. On this matter evidence was given before the Committee, who made certain recommendations. [The hon. Member read the recommendations of the Committee.] Notwithstanding those-recommendations, they were still where they were in regard to this very important matter. Another complaint which he wished to bring before the President of the Board of Trade was that the ship surveyors who could be appointed under the new Act had not the training necessary properly to qualify them for the important duties they bad to perform. He was informed that they had little experience in ship construction, and, if that was so, he could not understand why the Board. of Trade should run counter to the practice of Lloyds or of the Admiralty in the matter. He earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would seriously consider the subject. He understood that engineers were being appointed, and, while he had nothing to say against them in so far as their knowledge of the engines or the driving power was concerned, he did not think their knowledge of ship construction was such as to fit them for the position of ship surveyors so well as men who had been trained as shipbuilders. It was said that they must proceed cautiously in these matters, but he would remind hon. Members that two or three Royal Commissions had recommended what he was now urging, and he thought the time had arrived when Parliament should no longer allow the lives of men to be endangered on account of the action of some shipowners. He hoped that a proper understanding would be

193
come to on the subject of the sufficient and efficient manning of vessels.
Mr. JOYCEcalled attention to the delays which occurred in the conveyance of Irish products to this country, and asked whether the President of the Board of Trade could do anything to remove the causes of complaint by making representations to the railway companies. In a letter which he had just received, Mr. Robert Gibson, butter merchant, Limerick, stated that four boxes, containing altogether two cwts. of butter, sent by Holyhead on Saturday to Harrow-on-the-Hill, had not been delivered by Tuesday night. The consignee at Harrow-on-the-Hill, in a letter to Mr. Gibson, said that his stock of butter was sold out, that orders were waiting execution, and that he had to telephone to London for Danish and Normandy butter. The English merchant complained of the inattention of railway companies in this matter, and said it was no wonder that there was so much foreign competition. This state of affairs had been going on for many years, and, now that he had called attention to it, he hoped that something would be done to effect a remedy.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid the present position of the mercantile marine, and the prospects which the future had in store for it, required that proper arrangements should be made by the Government Department for the development of the industry.
MR. C. E. PRICEsaid that he quite agreed with what had been said in regard to improving the status of the office of the President of the Board of Trade. Ho remembered the time when the President of the Board of Trade was not in the Cabinet, but now his position was more important than that of the Secretary of State for War. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the improvements which he had made in the Board of Trade Journal, but further improvements were desirable. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should copy in the Journal extracts from the Consular Reports, which contained a great deal of information. He also suggested that the Consular Reports themselves were capable of improvement, because many of the
194
Consuls had had no business or any other training. When the Consular Reports spoke of the increase of trade in foreign countries it was important to know what was the effect of that trade on the condition of the people. From Washington, for example, it was reported that, although wages had generally advanced, they had not done so to the extent of the increased cost of living. Now, what was the value of that trade to America? The same thing applied to Germany. A short time ago a report was issued by the inspectors of factories in Leipzig as to the condition of workers in that city. That report ought to have been embodied in the Consul's Report. Unless they had this information they could never have an appreciation of the fair balance as to the effect of trade between two countries. There was nothing more misleading than to say that we had increased our business with a particular country by 30 per cent. if there was a decrease of 25 per cent. on profits. We must know what was the real benefit to us or to, say, the United States or Germany, as to the volume or value of the trade between these countries.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had no reason to complain of the discussion, but he appealed to the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken in order to give time for important matters connected with the Home Office Vote to come on, as arranged.
*MR. MORTONsaid that he was not prepared to give way unless he was assured that they would have another evening on which they, could discuss Board of Trade matters which he and his friends wished to bring forward.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman and his friends that if they were anxious to raise matters of principle there would be another opportunity later on, before the Estimates were disposed of, of discussing them on the Appropriation Bill.
*MR. MORTONsaid that as it appeared that this would be his only opportunity of calling attention to various matters in connection with the railway service of the country he desired to take it. First of all he wanted to call attention to

195
the necessity of sleeping car accommodation in third class railway carriages when that accommodation was provided on first class carriages.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEobjected, on a point of order, to this question being raised on the Vote before the House.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid a discussion on that point would not be in order. He was aware that the hon. Member had already tried to insert provisions of that sort into Bills, but they did not arise now, and it was not desirable to discuss them.
*MR. MORTON, on the point of order, urged that he was surely entitled to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he would not see that the public travelling third class had these facilities. Why should not the third class passengers have those facilities as well as the first class passengers?
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that under the Vote he was only entitled to discuss questions of administration, and not any proposals requiring legislation.
*MR. MORTONsaid he had some further points to call attention to. The Board of Trade should protect the public against the railways and not shield the railway companies. These monopolies and concessions which were granted by Parliament to a company were supposed to be for the advantage of the public. The hon. Member for Dulwich complained that people "nagged" at these companies and objected to competition, but what should we do in these days without competition? On the north side of London, where there was competition, the service was much better that in the south, where there was practically none.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANobserved that again the hon. Gentleman was referring to matters which could only be cured by legislation.
*MR. MORTONsaid he was replying to the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade, and the Member for Dulwich.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that it was not in order to discuss the question of competition if the policy advocated involved legislation.
*MR. MORTONsaid that ho would of course obey the ruling of the Chair, but ho submitted that a humble man like himself had a right to discuss what right hon. Gentlemen had discussed; they were told by the late Mr. Gladstone that they were all on an equality in the House. They were told they must not "nag" these companies; but they required criticism. For instance, the condition of Ludgate Hill station showed the necessity for somebody besides the Board of Trade looking after these questions. They were told that last year the companies proposed to spend £40,000 on the station, and he was glad that they were beginning to do some work, but the public had not had any assistance from the Board of Trade in getting that matter attended to.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the Board of Trade had no power in regard to the question of providing stations for a railway company.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEappealed to the hon. Member and the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken in order to give time for important matters connected with the Home Office Vote to come on, as arranged.
*MR. MORTONsaid he was not prepared to give way unless assured that he would have another opportunity of raising the matters which he wished to bring forward.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE:pointed out that the hon. Gentleman would, at any rate, have another opportunity on the Appropriation Bill,
*MR. MORTONsaid he was not inclined to wait for the Appropriation Bill, and observed that he wished to call attention to a number of matters in order to get justice done. He remembered a very great man, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, telling them that it was not only the right but the duty of Members of this House to call attention to these matters, so that they might get their grievances redressed. This was his only opportunity of getting those grievances redressed. He hoped the Board of Trade in making their inquiries would consult other people besides the companies, otherwise they would have the right to say that the Department acted for the latter and not for the public whose servants they were. He would also like to call attention to the question of tube railways, of which he was in favour, because it was necessary to get people in, out, and about London as speedily as was possible. The construction of these railways had, however, been very expensive. Some years ago the Board of Trade said that in regard to these tube railways, where the trains ran every two or three minutes, they would not allow any physical junction, but now they had allowed a physical junction at Camden Town. This matter needed watching by the Board of Trade, and he was sorry that such a physical junction had been allowed.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that obviously the Board of Trade had no control over these matters of the tube railways, power to do which would be contained in Act of Parliament. He had been listening attentively to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had been speaking for a long time. He had been waiting to see if the hon. Member had any special grievance directed against the Board of Trade, but apparently he had not.
*MR. MORTONsaid he had a special grievance, although he did not desire to be out of order in any sense or to take
198
undue advantage of the opportunities allowed him by the rules of Order. He only regretted that some arrangement appeared to have been made that night in regard to other matters. [An HON. MEMBER: Made publicly.] No, made behind their backs with a view of depriving them of their rights as Members of the House. He would, however, say no more now.
MR. R. DUNCANwished to call the Chairman's attention to the fact that at ten o'clock when he was making some remarks, he told him that it was ten o'clock, and he was not in order in continuing.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood him. He said the hon. Member's remarks were not in order. He said nothing about the clock. He did not intervene to stop the discussion.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid it was rather a painful position when a Member was compelled to appeal to the House from the Chair itself. He had asked, pointing to the clock, whether it was a case of the clock, and was told so. ["Order, order."]
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £128,735, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the salaries and expenses of the office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and subordinate offices."
MR. MOONEYsaid he was sorry that this Vote had come on so late in the evening, but it was no fault of theirs, and in spite of the declarations of the hon. Gentleman, there has been no underhanded dealing in this matter. It

199
was announced that the Home Office Vote would be set down about eight o'clock, so that hon. Members might discuss other matters.
*MR. MORTONsaid he understood that the debate on the previous Vote would be adjourned at eight o'clock, and proceeded with on another occasion after the Home Office Vote.
MR. MOONEYsaid the only reply he could make to that was that the Irish Members were not responsible for the hon. Gentleman's understanding. He had placed on the Paper a Motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State by £1,000, but he was glad to say that an amicable agreement had been come to which was quite satisfactory from the Irish point of view, while at the same time it safeguarded the public interest, in regard to the affairs of Messrs. Kynoch, of Arklow. The terms of that agreement were in possession of the Secretary of State, who would no doubt make the House acquainted with the facts, because he repudiated statements that there was anything underhand in the arrangement. He had seen it stated that a personal attack was being made on the Secretary of State, but he wished to say emphatically that there was not a single Irish Member who would attack the Homo Secretary, with his name and his record. When they saw a company going to Ireland, anxious to spend capital in that country, and doing something which they thought was going to stop the flow of emigration, it was only natural for them to do everything in their power to prevent that industry being suppressed, or to remove from the public mind any idea that there was an attempt to suppress that industry. He regretted that there did arise in connection with the Arklow factory the idea that certain inspectors of the Government had taken action against that factory which they would not have taken against an English company in like circumstances. Perhaps that feeling was wrong, but still it was there
200
The agreement come to had entirely removed that impression from their minds, and under these circumstances he only rose to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not intend to move the reduction standing in his name.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.)said he quite accepted the statement that in any action which the hon. Member and his friends thought it their duty to take there was no personal fooling with regard to himself involved. In a similar strain he could only say that, so far as Messrs. Kynoch were concerned, he had not been animated by any feeling of hostility or prejudice against them. In his judgment he had a very clear public duty to perform, and he had discharged it to the best of his power. In those matters it was always desirable, if they could, to come to a settlement which was consistent with public duty and with the public interest. As his hon. friend had said, his Department had come to an arrangement with Messrs. Kynoch. As this was a matter of considerable public importance it was not desirable that he should content himself with announcing the fact that a settlement had been arrived at. He would, therefore, put the House in possession of the terms of the settlement. The conditions which had been accepted by Messrs. Kynoch were these —
"Messrs. Kynoch agree to withdraw their appeal to the High Court and to accept the decision of the Essex Quarter Sessions. They will write a letter to the Chief Inspector of Explosives undertaking not to use mercuric chloride, or any ingredient which has a masking effect on the Abel heat test, and generally to observe the terms of their licences. Messrs. Kynoch to indicate to the Home Office the explosives now under seizure in the magazines which contain mercury, and to hand them over to the inspectors to be ultimately dealt with as the Committee appointed jointly by the War Office and the Home Office may recommend. The Home Office agree that the oases now pending against Messrs. Kynoch shall be withdrawn. That all explosives not containing mercury shall be released, and that the magazines required by Messrs. Kynoch

201
for trade purposes shall be cleared of their present contents —namely, the explosives seized under the Act, by concentrating the seized explosives in such place or places as may be approved by the Chief Inspector."
Those were the terms on which this matter had been settled, as he believed, in the public interest and to the advantage of everybody concerned. He could say with the utmost frankness and confidence that His Majesty's inspectors had never shown any partiality in the discharge of their duties —duties which they had performed admirably and without fear or favour and with great advantage to the country. Within the scope of their duties His Majesty's inspectors would be at all times glad to advise and consult Messrs. Kynoch or any other public company concerned in the manufacture of explosives with regard to the due development of a legitimate business. As far as ho was concerned, he fully appreciated what had been said. He had been in that House twenty-seven years, and his views about Ireland were well known. Perhaps he had been somewhat unfairly accused of an apparent desire to do some injury to what had been, and he hoped would always be, a thriving industry in Ireland. That recalled to his mind that twenty-five years ago his first legislative child in that House was a Bill called the Arklow Harbour Bill. That Bill, of which he was in charge, was a Bill for the benefit of Arklow. It provided a Treasury grant of £15,000 for the improvement of Arklow harbour, with a further loan of £20,000 or £30,000. He hoped his hon. friends opposite would therefore realise that his connection with Arklow was not wholly a bad one. He might explain that the settlement did not go beyond his own Department, and had nothing whatever to do with other Departments which might be concerned in the manufacture
202
of explosives, such as the War Office or the Admiralty. As far as his own Department was concerned this was the conclusion they had come to, and he hoped it was a satisfactory one.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid a flattering tribute had been paid to the right hon. Gentleman and all his family; they were most excellent people; the hon. Member had employed exactly four and a half minutes to say that, and had then sat down. Then came the right hon. Gentleman who had eulogised hon. Members below the gangway, and said everything that was pleasant —that an agreement had been come to, and the agreement was satisfactory; and then he too, sat down. Surely, merely for this, there was no reason why the Board of Trade Vote should have been passed. What was this sudden agreement which had been arrived at between hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and the right hon. Gentleman?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have not made any agreement at all with hon. Members below the gangway. I stated expressly that the agreement was between Messrs. Kynoch and my Department.
SIR F. BANBURY: Apparently hon. Members below the gangway are acting for Messrs. Kynoch.
MR. MOONEYsaid they were not acting for Messrs. Kynoch, nor had they any interest at all in Messrs. Kynoch, who were free to make whatever bargain they liked with the Government.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid ho thoroughly understood that. What he meant was that hon. Members represented the constituency in which were the works of

203
Messrs. Kynoch, and they were anxious that the works should be continued there. The right hon. Gentleman had continued those works in Ireland.
MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that so far as his Department was concerned, the agreement at which they had arrived on this matter had no reference to the continuance of the works at Ark-low.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not understand what all this shaking of hands was about. He saw no reason why the important debate on the Board of Trade Vote should have been hurriedly concluded in order that this short statement might be made. He was interested neither in Kynoch's nor in Ireland, but he was interested in the safety of His Majesty's sailors and soldiers; and if, in order to please hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, orders for ammunition were to be given to a firm which apparently had taken a course to prevent the proper testing of their ammunition, he would most strongly protest. He did not think the Home Secretary had given a satisfactory answer or a proper explanation of what he had done in the matter. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the appeal had been withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was much obliged to the hon. Baronet for giving him this opportunity of explaining the matter. He thought that before the hon. Baronet imputed motives to him and charged him with actions which might bear serious and dangerous results he should at least have made himself acquainted with the elementary facts of the case. Any one who had followed the ease knew very well that upon his instructions and responsibility a prosecu-
204
tion had been instituted against Messrs. Kynoch for a certain infringement of the law, and that judgment was given against them and confirmed at quarter sessions. Messrs. Kynoch appealed to the High Court, and delay occurred in hearing the appeal; and in the interval it was not possible to follow up the prosecution. What the Home Office wanted was a clear admission by Messrs. Kynoch that they had infringed the law; what they wanted was prevention of a repetition of the offence with which the firm was charged. Messrs. Kynoch had withdrawn their appeal, and in so doing had admitted the justice of the action taken against them; they had given the Home Office everything that was wanted by an undertaking that they would not in future put the unauthorised ingredient, chloride of mercury, into their explosives, that they would not put in any ingredient that would have the effect of masking the Government test, and that they would strictly observe the terms of the licence under which they were allowed to manufacture. Was anything else wanted? That had been his object from the first, and with that he would have been contented months ago. Messrs. Kynoch chose to fight the case before the law, but had now consented to accept the decision of the Court, pay their costs, and pay their penalties, giving an undertaking that the offence should not be repeated.
SIR F. BANBURYasked if that undertaking was not given in the old licence.
Mr. GLADSTONEsaid there was no undertaking, but the licence prescribed certain conditions and Messrs. Kynoch did not observe them.
SIR F. BANBURYwished to know what guarantee they had that Messrs.

205
Kynoch would not do the same thing again.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that Messrs. Kynoch all through had contended that they had not infringed the terms of their licence, but they had now given up that contention. The Home Office claimed that a certain construction must be put upon the terms of the licence, and Messrs. Kynoch had now accepted that construction and promised to abide by it. The Home Office had now got all they wanted. Messrs. Kynoch, though perhaps late in the day, had acted in a proper spirit. He had been made the target of uncomplimentary remarks from gentlemen connected with the firm, but to that he was indifferent. He had given the House the terms of the agreement, and he challenged any hon. Member to say what more ho could have done in the public interest and for the maintenance of the law.
*MR. BELLAIRSsaid that in his judgment if the right hon. Gentleman had insisted on unconditional surrender, and if the case had been carried to the Appeal Court, the Government would have had the decision of the Appeal Court instead of the decision of the other Courts which Messrs. Kynoch had already described as ludicrous. In any case there were one or two uncertain features about the agreement, respecting which he would like to ask a few questions. He wanted to know whether the agreement which the right hon. Gentleman had made in any way bound the Admiralty and the War Office?
MR. GLADSTONE: No.
*MR. BELLAIRSsaid there were about 3,000 tons of this stuff in our Navy and Army, and if the decision of the
206
Committee which Messrs. Kynoch had agreed to accept was against the contractors who supplied it, the Government should be free to sue for the money which had been paid for the cordite. He wished to know whether the evidence given before the Committee and the Report would be published. His third question referred specially to the Homo Office. Did the contract leave the Home Office free to proceed against the contractors for fraud? Messrs. Kynoch now acknowledged that the chloride was an illegal ingredient, and it was put in by order of the directors and the management. Clearly the Home Office should proceed in some way against the contractors for fraud. Messrs. Kynoch would now plead that they yielded in this agreement to the force of the great majority of Liberals in this House. Only two days ago Mr. Arthur Chamberlain, addressing a meeting of the shareholders at Birmingham indicated clearly the view that his company was the victim of politics, crushed between the hammer of Radical in-tolerance and Cecilian indifference: —
"Last year he congratulated them on their latest victory over a Radical slanderer, but the Radicals had never allowed them to forget that they had a political vendetta against them. And just at this time their old wounds had broken out afresh and were now bleeding. By reason of the re-opening of the question by the cases of two of their Ministers, Lord Portsmouth and Lord Tweedmouth, they were not in the humour to do justice to a Chamberlain.… On the other hand Kynochs suffered from the coolness of the Unionists because they believed the chairman to be tainted with Radical views in the matter of licensing and tariff reform. At the last general election he freely used his money and poor influence to secure the return of the Radical opponent to the Hon. Evelyn Cecil, and though he failed to prevent his election, the effort was not likely to make him persona grata to those who supported the Cecil family."
That showed very clearly the line that would be taken by Kynochs Ltd. in

207
reference to to-day's agreement, namely, that the Government used the political forces in this House, the vendetta as Mr. Arthur Chamberlain called it. Messrs. Kynoch had agreed to accept the Report of the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman in conjunction with the Secretary of State of War had appointed, but what did Mr. Arthur Chamberlain say of that Committee? He derided the Committee as being the reverse of impartial, as it included the Government experts. He said —
"Was it not perfectly evident that if the Home Office inspectors who had been so bitter against them thought they had the ghost of a chance of disproving these statements they would have been as eager for arbitration as the company were? The fact that they refused arbitration was to anyone who had ever watched' Pretty Fanny's ways' a proof that they had no case."
He imagined that "Pretty Fanny" in this case was his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The threat in regard to the removal of the works from Ireland was raised in 1900 in order to obtain a larger share of contracts, and it was raised again to-day. Messrs. Kynoch had threatened to remove from Arklow unless they got larger contracts. Mr. Arthur Chamberlain's explanation of how the manufacture of cordite was lost to Ireland in 1902 was the difficulties placed in the way of the Irish manufacture. He stated further that when the manufacture of cordite was taken away from Ireland and given to England, Arklow began to sink into the state of poverty and starvation from which it used to suffer. What was the real state of the facts? At Arklow in 1900 a quantity of cordite was rejected because it was full of physical impurities, because the chief inspector of explosives reported that it contained a large quantity of stones and nails. These things might
208
have been put in through the malice of the workmen, but obviously it was the duty of the inspector to reject all that cordite. In 1902 the cordite was rejected because it could not pass the heat test which was the only test they possessed —as Messrs. Kynoch well knew —to protect from destruction our soldiers and sailors and the men who worked in the mines of the country. They deliberately with the connivance of the directors masked the heat test by using mercuric chloride. That was the whole truth with regard to Messrs. Kynoch. They removed from Arklow because the cordite manufactured there was bad. But there were even more serious indictments against the firm in regard to other matters. They had boon found fault with because the cordite which was rejected by the Homo Office Inspector managed to find its way out of the country. The harbour by-laws of all port authorities prohibited the export of explosives which had been rejected, but this cordite was sold to the Japanese.
The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to allude to the cause of the disastrous magazine explosion in the Japanese battleship "Mikasa" when, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
Adjourned at five minutes after Eleven o'clock