Commons Sitting of 27 March 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Brockenhurst Gas Bill; Plymouth and North Devon Direct Railway (Abandonment) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Burnley Corporation Bill; Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  BYRNE'S DIVORCE BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords], and that the Clerk do carry the said Message.
  Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills, that they do hear counsel and examine witnesses for Byrne's Divorce Bill [Lords], and also that they do hear counsel and examine witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned see fit to be heard by counsel and produce witnesses.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Allanshane; Audley; Black Park; Broomhouse; Brown Edge; Bunkers Hill; Burley; Bucknall; Cheadle; Coegnant; Crynant; Cynon; Eccleston; Ellismuir; Draycott; Fenton; Foxfield; Golden Hill; Govan; Grange; Halmer's End, Hanley (Nos. 1 2, and 3); Holmwood (No. 1); Kidsgrove (Nos. 6 and 18); Leycett; Longton (Nos. 1 and 2); Maesteg (two); Milton Lodge; Padell-y-Bwlch; Priory; Seven Sisters; Skelmersdale; Sneyd; Swinhill; Talke; Watermills; and Whitfield Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kircaldy, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bowmore; Glasgow; and Oakenshaw; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Surrey and other places, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES).
  Return [presented 25th March] to be printed. [No. 97.]
  ARMY (MILITIA UNITS).
  Copy presented, of Return showing the Establishment of each Unit of Militia in the United Kingdom, and the numbers present, absent, and wanting to complete, at the training of 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board

  1767
  of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December,1906, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  GAS COMPANIES (METROPOLIS).
  Copy presented, of Accounts of the Metropolitan Gas Companies for the year 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]
  EXPLOSIONS (ARDEER, AYRSHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion of nitro-glycerine, which occurred at the factory of Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, at Ardeer, near Stevenson, Ayrshire, on the 5th February, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MINES (EIGHT-HOURS DAY FOR MINERS).
  Copy presented, of First Report (with Evidence) of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to inquire into the probable economic effect of a limit of Eight Hours to the Working Day of Coal Miners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  County.

  Name of Deer Forest or other Subject.

  Proprietor.

  Acreage.

  Rental as in Valuation Roll.

  —(Mr. Molteno.)

  COMPULSORY NATIVE LABOUR (COLONIES).
  Address for, "Return showing (a) the names of the various Colonies or British Possessions in which Compulsory Native Labour is employed, and upon what work, distinguishing the class of Native, namely, nationality or tribe; (b) whether the Natives so employed are liable to be employed outside the districts in which they usually reside; (c) the number of such Natives respectively; (d) the conditions under which Natives so employed are
  COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1868.
  Copy presented, of Act of Sederunt to regulate Procedure in the Court of Session [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIES (GENERAL).
  Copy presented, of Circular Despatch, dated 15th February, 1907, relative to the part taken by ex-Governors of Colonies in the organisation or direction of companies formed to operate in Territories which they were recently administering [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 16th March, 1907, removing the office of Assistant to the Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew from the operation of Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3752 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DEER FORESTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "of particulars of all Deer Forests and Lands exclusively devoted to sport in counties other than crofting counties in Scotland, in the following form:—
  housed or live, whether in fenced or enclosed areas or otherwise, also stating whether any restrictions are placed upon their individual liberty at times other than when they are engaged on their ordinary daily labour; (e) what, if any, regulations exist and are in practice for the punishment of such Natives respectively for desertion or misconduct, stating the nature of the offence and punishment, and if such regulations and practice have had the sanction of the Government or governing authority of the Colony or Possessions;

  1769
  (f) at what date and under what legal enactment, if any, the system was introduced."—(Mr. Molteno.)

  INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  Address for "Return of the names and previous occupations or professions of the Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors who are now serving; the dates of their appointment; and the number of candidates who sat at the examinations when each was successful, in so far as the appointments have been filled by competitive examination."—(Mr. Summerbell.)
  ARMY (COMMISSIONS).
  Address for "Return as to the number of Commissions granted during each of the years 1885 to 1906 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 153, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Pirie.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  His Majesty's Ship "Renown."
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the work of reconverting the "Renown" into a battleship has now been completed; what is the total cost of the alterations rendered necessary by the special service for which the ship was selected; and in what year's Estimates, and in what Vote was the cost referred to included.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No work has been done to "Renown," but she can be completed for active fighting service at short notice. The net cost of the alterations was £12,298, mainly brought to account under Vote 8 in 1905–6.

  Ships' Libraries.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what new books, periodicals, and newspapers, were ordered for officers' and ships' libraries in 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am forwarding to my hon. friend a list of 226 books ordered for officers' and
  1770
  ships' libraries during the past year, as it would be impossible to give, all the titles within the limits of an ordinary reply.

  Irish Land Purchase Delays.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that both landlords and tenants in Ireland have suffered loss by reason of the delay which is taking place in dealing with properties under The Land Purchase Act, 1903, landlords by reason of their having to pay in full all interest and charges on mortgages, while they receive no interest on the bonus, and tenants by reason of their having to pay interest until the completion of the sale; and whether he will, at an early date, make such alterations in the administrative machinery as to cause these applications to be dealt with with greater expedition.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The total advances applied for amount to £47,193,803. Of this amount the sum of £16,320,422 has already been advanced, and the Commissioners have themselves entered into agreements for purchase up to the sum of £635,373. There is at present a sum of £261,031 available for further advances, and it is expected that this amount will be advanced by the end of this month. As I have already stated, further issues of stock will be made from time to time as necessity arises. The sum of £28,500,000 represents the advances applied for and not yet made in cases of direct sale by landlord to tenant. The losses referred to in the Question by landlords in having to pay interest on charges pending completion of sale, and by tenants in having to pay interest instead of instalments, are unavoidable unless £30,000,000 of stock were immediately floated and the Estates Commissioners' staff enormously increased, both of which conditions are impracticable. It is to be remembered that landlords and tenants when entering into agreements were aware that money would not be available for some years to come. The question of the amount of money to be provided for land purchase in the coming financial year is now engaging serious attention. The Goverment have every desire that land purchase should be accelerated as much as possible.

  Scottish Railway Accident.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER GRAY: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that some 25,000 signatures have been attached to a petition in favour of the recommendation to mercy of the prisoner Gourlay, he will give the matter his most prompt and careful consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I shall certainly do so.

  Land Purchase Trustee.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the public trustee, appointed under the Land Purchase Act of 1903, can act as trustee in cases other than of sales under that Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The public trustee is appointed solely for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts, and I am advised that he cannot, as such, act as trustee of moneys other than the proceeds of sales under those Acts.

  Courtown Harbour.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Department of Agriculture in Ireland have reported with regard to the case of Courtown Harbour; and, if so, can he state the nature of their Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received a Report on Courtown Harbour from the Department of Agriculture, and will send a copy of it to the hon. Baronet.

  Arklow Harbour.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Board of Works and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland have yet arrived at an agreement with regard to the improvement of Arklow Harbour, in accordance with the arrangement come to last winter; and when will the work be begun.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Irish Government have provisionally arranged with the Department of Agriculture for the carrying out of the scheme agreed upon at the recent conference at Arklow. Certain steps have to be taken before the
  1772
  work can be begun, and these are being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

  Irish Potato Crop Failure.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now give full particulars of the plan adopted by the Irish Government for dealing with urgent distress in districts affected by the potato blight last autumn, for the supply of sound potato seed in cases where, owing to the failure of last year's crop and to poverty, the people are unable to procure a supply of sound seed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Government are adhering as closely as possible to the course of procedure for the relief of distress which was indicated by my predecessor in his reply to the hon. Members Question of December 5th.†I am glad to be able to state that Mr. Bryce's favourable forecast as to the conditions and prospects of the small landholders has been justified. The numbers in receipt of poor relief throughout the winter have been low, and at present are even lower than they were this time last year. Any abnormal distress that exists is confined to very limited areas in certain exceptionally poor districts in the West, where the failure of the potato crop was most serious, and where the rates are high and much poverty at the best of times is always present. In these localities the Local Government Board are applying the balance of the distress funds in their hands for the purpose of affording employment to the very poorest people through local committees, on which the district and county councillors and the clergy are represented. These committees are selecting the workers and inquiring into the needs of the applicants, and, where necessary, are affording employment on works of utility. Where they consider it expedient to do so, they are making arrangements for the importation of fresh seed on which the workers may spend their earnings. The guardians of the poor are, however, by law responsible for the relief of distress, and, so far as these special arrangements do not adequately provide for all classes of destitute poor, the guardians must exercise their powers under the ordinary laws, supplemented, if
  †See (4) Debates, clxvi., 941–4

  1773
  necessary, by the provisions of Section 13 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. The Agricultural Board in the Department of Agriculture had voted a sum of £10,000 for the purpose of enabling advances to be made to the people for the purchase of seed through the medium of agricultural banks. In addition to there measures the scheme of the Department outlined in Professor Campbell's evidence before the Royal Commission on Congestion, a copy of which has been handed to the hon. Member, has been put partially into execution. It will be more fully carried into effect as funds become available.

  Distribution of Seed Potatoes in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the plan of distributing potato seed through co-operative banks adopted by the Agricultural Department; whether the Irish Government approve of this scheme; and whether he can state the full details of the scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Department of Agriculture, with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board, have made arrangements for utilising agricultural credit societies in the western districts for the purpose of facilitating the introduction of new seed for the potato and other crops. Under this scheme the Department assist existing societies by the loan of additional capital in cases in which the existing capital is insufficient, and they also promote the organisation of new societies where such would seem to be needed. The Department use the services of the organisers of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society for the working of this scheme. I am forwarding to the hon. Member a copy of a circular issued by the Organisation Society, with the approval of the Department.

  Irish Co-operative Banks.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give a Return showing the number of co-operative banks in each Parliamentary division in Ireland, the situation of each bank, the amount of capital in each bank and how it has been supplied, the present condition
  1774
  of each bank, the expenses of management, the total amount of loans issued during last year, and the amount now outstanding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Department of Agriculture are not in possession of the information asked for, but it can for the most part be obtained through the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. The society would, however, require some time to tabulate the necessary particulars. Under The Friendly Societies Act, 1875, societies such as the banks referred to are required to send to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, before1st June in each year, an audited statement of their receipts and expenditure in respect of the year ended the last day of the previous December. The Department understand that a Return for the year 1906 in regard to all these banks could not be completed until after 1st June next. There would be some difficulty in preparing the Return by Parliamentary divisions, and the Department would, therefore, propose that it should be prepared by counties, which would probably meet the object which the hon. Member has in view.

  Gortnahoe Evicted Tenants.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Henry Oliver Langley, at Longfordpass, Gortnahoe, county Tipperary, has been sold to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to reinstate Michael Morriss and Edward Kealy, two evicted tenants on this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This estate has not been sold to the Estates Commissioners, but they are in communication with the owner with a view to purchasing it. M. Morris has applied for reinstatement, and the Commissioners have his application under consideration. No application has been received from E. Kealy.

  Scott and Cleaver Estate, Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements have been made by the Estates Commissioners to purchase the Scott and Cleaver estate, in the county Roscommon; how long is it since the offer was made;

  1775
  whether the estate has yet been inspected, and, if so, what was the result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the direct sale of this estate by the owners to the tenants were instituted before them in June, 1905. The estate has not yet been inspected, but will be inspected as soon as its turn is reached.

  Irish School Building Grants.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much of the £35,000 voted last year for school building grants has been actually issued; and, if it has not been all issued, how the fact can be accounted for that the amount voted by the House of Commons was not issued when the need for it was admittedly extreme.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Of the amount voted for school building grants for the current year the sum of £12,700 has been issued. The reason why the full amount of the Vote has not been issued is that the plans and the scale of grants were under discussion.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether each individual application for a grant for building or repairing an Irish schoolhouse comes before the Treasury in London, and whether the Treasury adjudicate on each application; and, if so, whether it is proposed to continue this system.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is not the practice to submit each individual application to the Treasury, but during the recent suspension of grants it was necessary to submit some urgent cases individually for approval. The continuance of this exceptional procedure is not contemplated.

  Mount Pleasant Grazing Farm, Westport.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick Joyce, of Hazelbrook,
  1776
  near Westport, county Mayo, has given over to his brother 250 acres of a grazing farm called Mount Pleasant, also near Westport, and which he has been grazing as an eleven months tenant; is he aware that there are several small landholders in the vicinity who have been expecting an enlargement of their holdings by the distribution of this farm, consisting altogether of 600 acres, amongst them; had Mr. Patrick Joyce any authority to hand over any portion of this farm to his brother; and will he see that it is divided amongst the uneconomic landholders in the neighbourhood.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are not aware that Mr. Patrick Joyce has parted with any portion of his lands at Mount Pleasant to his brother. Mr. Patrick Joyce was not an eleven months tenant, but held the lands under lease from Lord Clanmorris. He has surrendered 143 acres of his land for division among the tenants of uneconomic holdings.

  Loughrea Irish Interpreter.
  MR. GWYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that the post of Irish interpreter for the Loughrea division of county Galway has been vacant since October last, owing to the fact that the salary of £10 offered is insufficient even to defray the necessary expenses of attendance at the quarter sessions in four towns, and that, under the Local Government Act, no allowance for expenses can be made by the sheriff or county council; and if he will take steps to remove this difficulty, which hampers the administration of justice for native Irish speakers of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to this matter. Under the existing law the annual amount which the county council may provide for the payment of an interpreter at quarter sessions is limited to £30. In the case of county Galway this amount is divisible into three sums of £10, payable in respect of different divisions of the county, and I am informed that some difficulty exists in obtaining an

  1777
  interpreter at this rate in one part of the county. I cannot undertake to introduce special legislation with the object of enabling the county council to increase the payments to interpreters, but the matter will receive consideration in the event of legislation being introduced to amend the Local Government Acts.

  Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total amount voted to the Department of Agriculture since its establishment, and the rate per head of the present population of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member will find the amounts annually voted to the Department of Agriculture in the Estimates for the years since the Department was created. The estimated present population of Ireland will be given in reply to a Question of which the hon. Member has given notice.

  Cost of Irish Departments.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total cost in the last or preceding financial year of the Departments of the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland; also the total cost under each of the following heads: Judiciary, Police, Local Government Board, Education; and the rate per head of the population in each of the five Departments, together with the total cost of Civil Government in Ireland, with the rate per head of the population.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1905–6, from which he will be able to ascertain the expenditure from voted moneys on the services mentioned.

  Irish Petty Session Courts—Good Friday Sittings.
  MR. JORDAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that
  1778
  instructions have been given to all petty sessions clerks in Ireland that courts are to be held on Christmas Days and Good Fridays when the day fixed for petty sessions falls on these holidays; whether it is proposed to hold a petty sessions court in Derrygonnelly, county Fermanagh, on Friday next; whether arrangements have been made for the attendance of justices on that day so as to avoid inconvenience to the public who have been invited to attend; and if he will give instructions that these holidays are to be observed in petty sessions courts as in all other courts in the Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that no instructions have been sent to petty sessions clerks generally as to the holding of petty sessions courts on Christmas Day and Good Friday. In reply to a query addressed to the registrar of petty sessions clerks the petty sessions clerk at Derrygonnelly has been informed that it is not illegal to hold a petty sessions court on Good Friday, and that, if no magistrate should attend, the court should be adjourned according to statute.

  Magheragallon Pier.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has received a petition from the fishermen of the district asking for the improvement of the pier at Magheragallon, county Donegal; and whether, in view of the importance of this place as a fishing centre, the Board will take steps to improve the harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have not received the petition referred to.

  Jamaica School Buildings.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received information as to the condition of school buildings and teachers' dwellings in Jamaica, as affected by the recent earthquake; what steps the Government have taken to enable the schools to be reopened; and whether notices have been

  1779
  served upon teachers that their pay was to be stopped in cases where it had not been practicable to reopen the schools, and in other cases for school inspections to go on though the conditions relating to the schools owing to the earthquake made that unwise and in some cases impracticable.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has not yet received the information for which he has asked the Governor of Jamaica, as promised in the reply made by the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member of the 6th instant.†

  Valuation Office Dublin Clerks.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury have considered the memorials forwarded to them on behalf of certain clerks in the Valuation Office, Dublin, and in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Commissioner of Valuation, Ireland, was informed in December and January last that the Treasury was not prepared to accede to the petitions of the various clerks in his department. I have received no further memorial from these officers. As regards the clerks in the office of the Registrar of Deeds I would refer the hon. Baronet to the written reply which I gave on this subject on the 20th instant.‡

  Irish Historical Manuscripts.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE:To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what collections of Irish historical manuscripts are now in course of publication by the Record and Historical Manuscripts Commissions, and when is it expected that they will be published, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the only Irish manuscripts now engaging the staff of the Historical Manuscripts Commission are those of the Marquess of Ormonde, of which the fourth volume was published last year
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 778–9.
  ‡See (4) Debates, clxxi., 830–1
  1780
  and the fifth is now at press and will be published in the course of the current year. The Record Commission has for long ceased to exist, but the Public Record Office continue to issue calenders of State Papers relating to Ireland.

  Irish Contributions to Imperial Revenue.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what amount towards the Imperial taxation was drawn from Ireland in the year the Financial Relations Commission was sitting; what was the population of Ireland at that period; what amount Ireland contributed last year towards Imperial taxation; and what was the estimated population of Ireland last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) In the year 1895–6 the tax revenue contributed by Ireland was calculated at £7,075,000. The estimated population of Ireland on the 30th June, 1895, was 4,560,000. In 1905–6 Ireland's contribution to tax revenue was calculated at £8,254,000, the estimated population on the 30th June, 1905, being 4,392,000. I may perhaps add that the cost of the Irish services defrayed out of Imperial funds was in 1895–6 £5,939,000, and in 1905–6 £7,635,500.

  Naval Prizes.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, why the prizes to petty officers, seamen, and boys have been reduced from £8,880 in 1906–7 to £8,300 in 1907–8; and whether he can state why the table giving the distribution of this grant for proficiency in different weapons has been omitted from the new Navy Estimates.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The amount provided for prizes for good shooting in the 1907–8 Estimates, although showing a reduction of £580 on the estimate as compared with the prior year, is in fact based on the anticipation of more money being expended for these prizes during the next financial year, the payments actually made in recent years having fallen short of the provision by considerably more than that sum. The table referred to

  1781
  has been omitted on the ground that its inclusion in the printed Estimates had not been found to serve any useful purpose.

  Simon's Bay Dockyard.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the estimated cost of the Simon's Bay dockyard extension has been reduced by upwards of £300,000.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In view of the present state of this work it was considered that the sum reserved for contingencies and unforeseen difficulties in construction might be reduced. Some deductions have also been made in the buildings originally proposed.

  "Britannia" Royal Naval College.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the original estimate of the cost of seamen's barracks in connection with the "Britannia" Royal Naval College; and why it has been decided to omit them from the scheme of 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The original estimate of cost of the barracks was £15,000. The work has been deferred pending further consideration, it being less urgent than certain other works.

  Ireland's Contribution to Upkeep of the Navy.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the total amount contributed by Ireland in the last financial year to the upkeep of the Navy, and the total value of the Navy contracts placed in Ireland by the Admiralty Office during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The first part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards the second part, the preparation of any statement would involve great clerical labour, and the result would be necessarily incomplete and to some extent misleading.

  Power to remove Naval Officers.
  MR. BELLAIRS:To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, how many signatures are required to make an order of the Admiralty executive in reference to the removal of an officer from the command of his fleet, ship, or barracks, or whether this power can be exercised by the First Lord of the Admiralty without the concurrence of the Sea Lords forming the Board of Admiralty; and whether he can state in what respects the practice is a variation, and under what patent or Order in Council, from that pursued in April, 1795, when the decision of Lord Spencer to supersede Admiral Lord Hood in the command of the Mediterranean Fleet could not be carried into effect until he obtained the signatures of two of the Sea Lords.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Board of Admiralty are not prepared to discuss their present methods of administration of Admiralty business and the methods practised by their predecessors in 1795. The hon. Member may rest assured that provisions contained in the letters patent under which the Lords Commissioners exercise their authority are duly observed.

  Naval Casualties.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any official information showing that the number of collisions and groundings of His Majesty's ships in the years 1905–6 were the result of the employment of officers being so restricted in consequence of the redistribution of the fleet; and if he will state the number of collisions and groundings in 1905–6, and in previous years.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The redistribution of the fleet has not restricted the employment of officers. The number of His Majesty's ships exercised at sea in the years 1905, excluding manœuvres, and 1906, including manœuvres, was greater than in previous years. The number of groundings has steadily decreased since 1882, as shown by the attached table. A bare statement of the number of collisions would be misleading, as some were not due to any want of care on the part of the officers in charge of His Majesty's ships.

  Year.

  Number of Ships in Commission.

  Total Number of Groundings.

  Percentage of Groundings to Number of Ships.

  Excluding Manœuvres.

  Including Manœuvres.

  Excluding Manœuvres.

  Including Manœuvres.

  1882

  210

  —

  44

  21·0

  —

  1883

  208

  —

  41

  19·7

  —

  1884

  210

  —

  49

  23·3

  —

  1885

  217

  —

  41

  18·9

  —

  1886

  221

  —

  40

  18·1

  —

  1887

  222

  265

  47

  21·2

  17·7

  1888

  228

  257

  35

  15·4

  13·6

  1889

  232

  280

  34

  14·7

  12·1

  1890

  235

  250

  28

  11·9

  11·2

  1891

  247

  285

  35

  14·2

  12·3

  1892

  250

  290

  31

  12·4

  10·7

  1893

  245

  280

  29

  11·8

  10·4

  1894

  230

  270

  27

  11·7

  10·0

  1895

  269

  325

  20

  7·4

  6·2

  1896

  271

  318

  32

  11·8

  10·1

  1897

  286

  325

  18

  6·3

  5·5

  1898

  284

  329

  29

  10·2

  8·8

  1899

  292

  333

  26

  8·9

  7·8

  1900

  328

  346

  35

  10·7

  10·1

  1901

  332

  —

  36

  10·8

  —

  1902

  337

  —

  36

  10·7

  —

  1903

  332

  376

  29

  8·7

  7·7

  1904

  308

  370

  30

  9·7

  8·9

  1905

  354

  —

  41

  11·5

  —

  1906

  300 including ships in commission in reserve.

  386

  28

  9·3

  8·2

  Coals to Russian ships at Portsmouth.
  MR.BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the dockyard authorities at Portsmouth are supplying coals to the Russian ships there, although such coals can be obtained from private firms in the locality at current prices; and whether there are any, and, if so, what, instructions given to the Royal Dockyards in reference to the supply of coals under the circumstances before detailed.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund-Robertson.) The coals were supplied from the Admiralty stock as a matter of international courtesy at the request of the Russian Embassy and under instructions from the Admiralty. The instructions in force at the Royal Dockyards are to the effect that supplies similar to that now in question are not to be made except on prior Admiralty authority.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has now inquired into the Report that rewards have been offered, with the knowledge of the Scottish Office, to Moray Firth line fishermen for information which may lead to conviction of any trawlers within the prohibited waters of the North Sea, now enclosed by a by-law within Moray Firth; and will he say whether masters of trawlers have been convicted on mere suspicion of the evidence given by prejudiced men, whilst trawlers are now afraid to enter the Moray Firth for shelter in stress of weather, in accordance with the custom in the territorial waters of other maritime nations adjoining the North Sea.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I have nothing to add to the Answer given to my hon. friend on the 19th instant†.

  Grocers' Spirit Sales.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount of spirits sold during the year ending 31st March, 1906, by grocers holding spirit licences in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxi, 673.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I find on inquiry of the Board of Inland Revenue that this information does not exist. The amount of spirits sold by grocers holding spirit licences is not distinguished in the Board's Annual Reports, which only give the total amounts of spirits consumed.

  Baronets.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into matters affecting the degree of baronet have presented their Report; and, if so, whether the Report will be laid before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, Sir; this Committee have presented their Report, and it will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  Tinplates for Canada.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what were the imports of tin-plates into Canada from the United States during the years 1903–6, inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The total quantities of tinplates and sheets imported into Canada from the United States, during the four years ended 30th June, 1906, were as follows:—

  Year ended 30th June.

  Tons.

  1903

  1,456

  1904

  3,760

  1905

  8,641

  1906

  11,372

  Tests for Colour Blindness.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing that the tests for colour blindness, adopted by the Board of Trade, are efficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I can only say that the colour tests for the mercantile marine were adopted on the advice of a Committee of the Royal Society of the highest eminence, and that the Board of Trade have no reason to doubt their efficiency.

  Abbeyfeale Railway Accommodation.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can say whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Town Tenants' Association of Abbeyfeale, protesting against the destruction of the trade and general interests of the town by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company through the insufficiency of loading and unloading accommodation at the railway premises there and the want of a proper staff of men; and if he can say what action he intends to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have received a copy of the resolution in question and are communicating with the railway company in the matter.

  Board of Agriculture Finance.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state the total amount voted by Parliament to the Board from 1900 inclusive, and the rate per head of the population of Great Britain.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The aggregate amount voted by Parliament for the service of the Board for the seven years from 1900–1901 to 1906–7, inclusive, was £766,403, a sum which is equivalent to 4·9d. per head of the population as enumerated at the Census of 1901. But, as I stated in reply to my hon. friend the Member for the Droitwich Division on the 18th instant, there are other charges both on the Exchequer and the Local Taxation Account which should be taken into consideration in estimating the total expenditure incurred by the Board for the benefit of the agricultural and fishery industries.

  Sewage Disposal.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The matter is under consideration, but I
  1788
  cannot make any announcement with regard to it at the present moment.

  House of Commons Postal Staff.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received any recommendation as to the payment for prolonged and extra duties of the postal and telegraph staff in the Houses of Parliament; and if he is prepared to make any arrangement to recompense these officials for their duties on the occasion of all-night sittings or extra hours.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The attendance of the staff employed at the House of Commons post office is necessarily somewhat irregular, but on the average the regular staff is probably not called upon to work more than forty-eight hours a week. Special privileges are accorded to them in the shape of partial exemption from duty on Saturdays and an extended annual leave, on the understanding that no special payment will usually be made on the occasion of specially long sittings. I may mention that I sanctioned a special addition to the annual leave of the post office staff in consideration of last year's autumn session.

  Post Office and Employers' Insurance.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Postmaster-General for how long a period Lord Farrar's Departmental Committee will continue to take evidence on employers' insurance through the Post Office Savings Banks in respect of workmen's compensation.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Committee are taking evidence, and I am unable to say when they will report.

  Newspaper Misrepresentations.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been directed to a statement to the effect that a new tax amounting to £3,000,000 will be placed upon householders under the new employers' liability provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; that such statement purported to be made upon the authority of a gentleman who has since stated that the sum he named was £150,000, and

  1789
  not £3,000,000; and whether he proposes to initiate legislation by which a newspaper can be punished for persisting in a mis-statement which misrepresents and disparages the legislation of Parliament.
  (Answered by Sir Lawson Walton.) The newspaper referred to has published an explanation. The case is not one calling, in my opinion, for an amendment of the law.

  Kent Education Committee.
  MR. JENKINS: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Kent Education Committee are trying to enforce that only those should be accepted as pupil teachers who have had experience in secondary schools; that at the only school of this type in Chatham and Gillingham the fees are so high as to practically exclude the children of the artisan and labouring classes; and that the local education committee at Gillingham has passed a resolution expressing its disapproval of these charges; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As the Question only appeared this morning upon the Paper there has not been time for me to investigate the circumstances. But I will cause inquiry to be made and will see whether any improper hindrances are put in the way of the children referred to who are desirous and fit to enter the teaching profession.

  Militia Officers' Full Dress.
  COLONEL SANDYS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, if incorporated in the proposed Territorial Army, the privilege now accorded specially to the Militia of wearing gold lace on their uniform will be retained by them; and, if so, whether this privilege is also to be given to the other units of the new force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no intention of interfering with the full-dress uniform now worn by officers of the auxiliary forces.

  Irish Contribution to Army Cost.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total amount of Ireland's
  1790
  contribution towards the Army in the last financial year; and the total value of the Army contracts placed in Ireland by the War Office during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The materials at my immediate disposal do not enable me to give the hon. Member the information he requires. The compilation of the statistics in regard to the contracts would involve great time and labour.

  War Office Surveyors.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the disparity existing between the salaries of the surveyors and assistant surveyors of the staff for engineer services and those of professional civil servants holding similar appointments in other departments of the public service; and whether he intends to do anything to improve the position of the staff for engineer services.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The matters alluded to are still under consideration.

  Volunteer Officers' Liabilities.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can indicate the extent and nature of liabilities incurred by officers of Volunteer corps in respect of their regiments other than those connected with the cost of drill halls and ranges.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The liabilities in question consist of debts incurred in the general administration of the corps, including clothing, etc. From Returns rendered up to 31st March, 1906, the net debtor balance of the Volunteer Force taken as a whole amounted to £278,000, and there were private funds in hand amounting to £73,000. The Capitation Grant paid on 1st April, 1906, amounted to £596,000.

  Foreign Trawlers off the South Coast.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the distress among the fishermen of Plymouth and the neighbouring coast, he is able to state before the Easter Recess whether any determination has been come to as to the appointment of a

  1791
  Committee of investigation into the action of foreign trawlers, suggested a fortnight since by the Secretary to the Admiralty.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The whole question of the marine police is under the consideration of the Government. The "Argus," a very efficient vessel, fitted with search lights, has been sent to the Devon and Cornwall fishery ground, whilst one of the regular vessels told off for that duty is under repair, and she will be retained there for the present.

  Women on Local Bodies.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can say when he proposes to introduce the Bill which would enable women to be elected to serve on local bodies.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I cannot yet fix a date for the introduction of this Bill.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Coal Storage Expenditure.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty for what reason and on what items the estimated expenditure, under the statute of 1905, on coaling facilities and fuel storage has been reduced by £260,000.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert, Devonshire, South Molton): The reductions are due to a careful revision of the items in the light of present naval requirements. The hon. Gentleman will understand it was impossible in 1905 to forecast with entire accuracy the needs of 1907.

  Admiralty Work at the Royal Arsenal.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the one-third proportion of work done for the War Office being done in the Government workshops also applies to the Admiralty; and, if so, will he say what proportion and amount of Admiralty work is being placed in the Royal Arsenal for the ensuing year.
  MR. LAMBERT: My hon. friend will be glad to know that consider-
  1792
  ably more than one-third of the guns required for the year will be allotted to the Royal Arsenal.

  Rosyth.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many men are now employed at Rosyth; and what is the aggregate of their weekly wages.
  MR. LAMBERT: I assume the hon. Member refers only to workmen. There are nine employed directly by the Admiralty, the aggregate wages being £11 10s. This does not include engineering staff and men employed by a contractor in sinking an experimental cylinder.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what date the preliminary works at Rosyth, for which the estimated cost as revised was £165,000, were completed.
  MR. LAMBERT: The preliminary works are not yet complete.

  Bentley Motor Train Fatality.
  MR. MARNHAM:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a serious, and afterwards fatal, accident to the driver of a London and South Western Railway motor train near Bentley station on the 28th February, when the injured man was taken by train to Bordon camp, with a view to his receiving the assistance of the military doctor there; whether he is aware that the latter refused to attend to the man; whether there are any restrictions in the Army Regulations which prevent military doctors from attending to civilian casualties such as the one referred to; and, if so, will he take steps to have such restrictions forthwith removed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane, Haddington): I have made inquiries into this matter. It appears that the military medical officer concerned was not asked to attend to the man. There are no restrictions placed on military medical officers against rendering immediate assistance in civil cases, nor to the admission into military hospitals of cases requiring

  1793
  surgical attendance, the result of serious accidents in the immediate vicinity.

  Purchased Discharges for the Army.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, how many recruits purchased their discharge at a cost of £10 during each of the last five years.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures for recruits claiming their discharge under Section 81, Army Act, are as follows:—Twelve months to 31st December, 1902, 933†; nine months to 30th September, 1903, 590; twelve months to 30th September, 1904, 766; twelve months to 30th September, 1905, 830; twelve months to 30th September, 1906, 868.

  Royal Arsenal Workers.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in reference to the Comptroller General's recent Report on the Ordnance Factories, he is aware that discontent exists in the Royal Arsenal in regard to price-fixing for piece-work; whether married mechanics are taking, or have taken, as little as 14s. per week of forty-eight hours; and whether in some cases rate-fixers have doubled the prices originally put upon the job.
  MR. HALDANE: It is not thought that any general discontent exists in regard to price-fixing for piece work in the Ordance Factories. There have no doubt been individual cases where men have complained that the prices fixed have been too narrow to allow of their securing their usual earnings, and where this is proved to be the case, correction, which may have been very material in some cases, has been made in favour of the workman. It is, however, now the practice not to reduce a rate when once fixed, and if it proves to be on the high side the workman gets the benefit. But when in certain cases, apart from sickness or short time, the rate has been found too low it has been altered with retrospective effect. In some cases rates have been as much as doubled. This was not, however, due to mistakes in fixing the original rates, but because certain
  †Discharges by purchase suspended during South African War from October 1899 to May 1902.
  1794
  exigencies in the shops had compelled the adoption of more laborious methods in certain instances.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there are many men in the Royal Arsenal who, although attending the Arsenal each day, are frequently kept hours without work being given them; whether he is aware that, even when work is given, the weekly earnings are on the average much below time wages; and whether he can guarantee that men who are kept on the books shall have at least guaranteed to them their wages at day rates.
  MR. HALDANE: Many men suspended on account of slackness of work attend at the Arsenal each day to ascertain if work can be found for them. If preferred the men can be discharged, but while suspended they cannot be paid at day rates nor can any guarantee of work be given, though every endeavour will be made to find work for such men as are kept on the books.
  MR. CROOKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-night a great number of men will be turned out of the Arsenal until Monday week without pay?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Lord Esher and the War Office.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Esher is constantly or frequently in attendance at the War Office; and, if so, what functions he there performs.
  MR. HALDANE: I am at a loss to understand what the hon. Member means by the series of Questions he is addressing about Lord Esher. If he has a grievance against him it would be better that he should state it openly, when it may be possible for me to investigate Lord Esher's movements and doings to his satisfaction.
  MR. BOWLES: Arising out of that Answer, may I say that I have not the slightest personal feeling against Lord Esher, and that my Question was not inspired by any feeling of the kind? I

  1795
  ask whether Lord Esher is constantly or frequently in attendance at the War Office; and, if so, what functions Lord Esher performs there; can the right hon. Gentleman answer that Question?
  [No further reply was given.]

  Cost of Soldiers' Uniforms.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost of supplying 300,000 men of the territorial force with one suit of clothes (service dress) for each man enrolled, together with boots, head dress, overcoat, etc.
  MR. HALDANE:The cost of service dress for infantry, including great coat, boots, helmet, cap and badge, and putties, amounts to an average annual sum of 10s. 5d. per man, or about £156,000 a year for 300,000 men. The additional cost of equipment is about 1s. per man.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the total cost?
  MR. HALDANE: I should like notice of that.

  Irish Recruits.
  MR. STARKEY:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended that recruits for the special contingent shall be enlisted in Ireland concurrently with the enlistment of recruits for the Irish Militia; and, if not, whether any special provision will be made for strengthening the reserve of regiments having their depots in Ireland.
  MR. HALDANE: It is the intention that all recruits in Ireland, other than those for the Regular Army, shall be enlisted under the provisions of Part III. of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. Enlistment for the third or training battalions, and for other battalions in Ireland will be carried on concurrently.

  Indian Bird Protection.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India proposes to pass a measure for checking the destruction of birds in that country, the administrative order in force prohibit-
  1796
  ing the export of birds' feathers being insufficient to meet the case, inasmuch as it is inoperative at ports in native states and foreign possessions, and is subject at any time to be revised or cancelled.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Bristol, E.):I am not aware that legislation is contemplated. An Act, if passed, would equally be inoperative in native states and would of course be open to repeal.

  Indian Crops—Damage by Wild Animals.
  MR. REES:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the testimony afforded by Mr. Morison, member of the Council of India, to the damage done to crops of Indian cultivators by wild animals, which are the natural prey of other larger beasts, for the indiscriminate destruction of which the Indian Government offers rewards; and whether, in the interests of the cultivators, he will invite the Government of India to revise its scale of rewards.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: It is unfortunately true that the crops of Indian cultivators are damaged by wild animals; but, as I have said before, I am not prepared on that account to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.

  Indian Defence Expenditure.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state what sum should be added in respect of expenditure on strategic railways to that of £20,599,500, in order to ascertain the defence expenditure of India in the year 1906–7, and what is the corresponding Estimate to be added to the Estimate for military expenditure in the Budget for 1907–8; also what has been and is to be the charge for the extension of the line from Jamrud to the point on the Kabul River known as Mile 300.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: According to the latest information in my possession, the expenditure on strategic railways was £220,000 in 1906–7, and the Estimate for 1907–8 is £133,000. The

  1797
  estimated cost of the Kabul River Railway up to Mile 300 is £337,000, of which £225,000 has already been spent.

  Abazai Garrison.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the composition of the force to be stationed at Abazai or its neighbourhood.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Abazai is a village with a small fort twenty-four miles north of Peshawar City. Its nominal garrison is a company of native infantry and fifty cavalry. The last returns show seventy-three infantry and fifty-one cavalry present.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is there any immediate intention of putting a larger force there?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Not so far as I am aware at present.

  Indo-Chinese Railway Survey Expenditure.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what was the nett total cost of the survey executed in 1898–9 from the proposed crossing of the Myitnge River near Lashio, viâ Hsinwi and Möng La, to the Salwen River on the route of the Mandalay-Kunlon Ferry line.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I am unable to give the information asked for by the hon. Member; but I will make inquiries.
  MR. LEA: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be in possession of the information?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.

  Trinidad Industries and Wages.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the sugar and cocoa planters of Trinidad applied for 2,314 immigrants for the year 1907–8, and that the Legislative Council granted only 1,800;that the number of such immigrants now number 13,000 out of a population of 330,000; that, as a
  1798
  result of the annual introduction of such a number of immigrants, wages have been reduced during recent years, particularly on the cocoa estates, where wages, some years ago, were sixty cents per day as against thirty-five cents per day at the present time, the result being that a number of the native population are unemployed and in poor circumstances; and, seeing that there is no lack of labour in the Colony at the present time and in view of all these circumstances, will he consider the desirability of putting a check on the importation of such immigrants.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt, Lancashire, Rossendale, for Mr. Churchill): The Secretary of State is aware of the reduction in the number of Indian immigrants to be introduced into Trinidad during the coming season. The returns of June, 1906, give the number of indentured immigrants in the Colony as 9,924, and while about 3,000 have since been introduced, the indentures of some 2,400 introduced in 1902 have expired. The present number may therefore be assumed to be about 10,500. The Special Committee recently appointed by the Governor to consider the labour question in Trinidad reported that no general reduction in wages had taken place; any reduction that may recently have occurred on cocoa estates is doubtless due to the failure of the crop. The Secretary of State sees no reason at present for further limiting the importation of immigrants.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of natives are leaving the Colony now in order to seek work elsewhere?
  MR. HARCOURT: I am not acquainted with the fact.

  Trinidad Immigrants.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the cost per head of immigrants introduced into the Island of Trinidad is about £27 10s., towards which employers only contribute £5, the remaining £22 10s. being made up by one-third from general revenue, and two-thirds from an export tax on produce,

  1799
  or in other words an annual charge to the Colony of some £20,000; and, if so, whether he will recommend that the deficit anticipated in the Estimates of the Colony should be met by the saving of this annual expenditure in preference to the suggested increase in the local tariffs.
  MR. HARCOURT: The cost of indentured immigration varies; in the last completed financial year it was about £24 per head. Employers pay an indenture fee of £5 per head and contribute to the Immigration Fund by the payment of export duties. From the Immigration Fund two-thirds of the total cost of immigration is paid; the other third, amounting to some £20,000, is paid from general revenue. As the Under-Secretary of State stated in his reply to the hon. Member on the 27th ultimo, the Secretary of State does not propose that this system should be changed.

  Trinidad Breaches of Civil Contracts.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether nearly 50 per cent. of those committed to prison in the Island of Trinidad were for breaches of civil contracts, and that such breaches are greatly due to the immigrants not being paid anything approaching the minimum wage of 5s. 2½d. per week promised; and, if so, what action he is prepared to take in the matter.
  MR. HARCOURT: The number of persons committed to prison in Trinidad during the year 1905–6 for breaches of the Immigration Ordinance was about 35 per cent. of the total number of committals. This number includes persons committed for other breaches of the Ordinance besides breaches of indenture. The Governor of Trinidad recently made a careful investigation into the causes leading to this number of convictions, and came to the conclusion that the frequency of desertions was not due to the insufficiency of wages on estates, but rather to the facilities with which the indentured immigrants could obtain other employment or promises of employment both in the Colony and in the neighbouring country of Venezuela. The Secretary of State sees no reason for any further action in the matter.

  Trinidad Customs Commission.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to give the names of the Commission appointed by the Trinidad Government to revise the local Customs tariff; whether a representative of the working class has been appointed a member of the Commission; and whether the proceedings of the Commission will be made public.
  MR. HARCOURT: I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member the information he desires, but the Secretary of State has telegraphed to the Governor on the subject.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: Is it not strange that information which appeared in the Press weeks ago cannot be got for the Government yet?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Kowloon and Canton Railway.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at what price, delivered at Kowloon, including insurance and freight, sleepers have been supplied for the British Government section of the Kowloon to Canton Railway; whether the sleepers, according to the contract, had to be hand-hewn or sawed; whether a Government certificate of inspection from the place of export accompanied the shipment: whether he is aware that the Hong-Kong agents of the firm supplying these sleepers are also the agents of the British Chinese Corporation, Limited; whether tenders for the supply of these sleepers were called for, and, if so, when and where they were advertised; and, more particularly, whether the Crown Agents gave any information to the Agents General of the Australian States that the tenders were being asked for these sleepers.
  MR. HARCOURT: I understand that a contract has been given locally by the resident engineer for certain sleepers, but the matter was not referred to the Crown Agents or the Colonial Office, and the Secretary of State has at present no official information on the subject.

  St. Helena—Unemployment.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that it is likely that the proposed flax industry in St. Helena will still leave many of the inhabitants unemployed, he will take any further steps to alleviate the distress of the inhabitants of that island, who have practically lost their livelihood by the action of the Government in removing the troops hitherto quartered there.
  MR. HARCOURT: The Secretary of State is considering whether any further measures can be taken in the direction of assisted emigration.

  Franco-Siamese Treaty.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the negotiations which preceded the Treaty between Siam and France which has just been concluded, His Majesty's Government were consulted; whether that Treaty permits any extension of French influence or interests on the right bank of the Mekong towards the British political frontier; and whether the Treaty gives any preference to French merchandise passing into Siam over merchandise coming from the British Shan States.
  THE SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,): I must ask the hon. Member to wait till the terms of the Treaty are made public before I can answer Questions about it.

  Municipal Borrowing in the United States.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the specified limits put by law upon municipal borrowing in the different States of the United States.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will consult with the Board of Trade as to whether such a Return would be of value, and will inquire whether it would easily be obtained.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERwas understood to ask what Department was responsible for this matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid it was usual to consult all Departments concerned before making a promise to grant a Return, as a promise might be made and it might be found subsequently very difficult to obtain the facts asked for.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYWill the right hon. Gentleman simultaneously grant a Return showing the limits put upon such expenditure in other countries?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This supplementary Question shows the danger of making promises.

  Kidnapping a British Subject at Salonika.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information with regard to the alleged kidnapping of a British subject, Mr. Robert Abbot, from his father's garden, in the immediate vicinity of the British Consulate at Salonika on Thursday the 21st instant, and, if so, whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A telegram has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople on the subject, and the necessary steps are being taken by the Grand Vizier and the local authorities at Salonika in concert with His Majesty's Consul-General.

  Consulates in Persia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Consulates in Persia have been strengthened, he will consider the advisability of strengthening the British Consulates so as to bring them, at least, on a par with the Russian Consulates, seeing the moral effect that a prompt display of strength has with the Asiatic peoples.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government see no reason to modify the opinion expressed in my Answer to the Question asked on the 22nd instant by the hon. Member for the Ripon Division of Yorkshire.†Recent changes are very small, and do not involve a moral effect.
  †See (4) Debates,clxxi.,849.

  Morocco Disturbances.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information as to the attack on the British Consulate by the rabble in Morocco, on or about Tuesday, the 19th instant, which was repelled only by the inmates using firearms; and what steps does he intend to take to prevent the recurrence of such an outrage.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not yet received particulars of the occurrences referred to. According to the latest information, all Europeans at Marakesh were safe and well on the 23rd, and I have no reason to believe that they are in any danger at present. His Majesty's Government will carefully watch events, and act as the circumstances seem to require.

  Assault on British Subjects at Amoy.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government adopted the suggestion of His Majesty's Minister at Peking to the effect that some compensation should, as an act of grace, be paid to Dr. Horne and Mr. Eadie, who were assaulted near Amoy in June, 1906.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Chinese Government have been requested to pay compensation as an act of grace, and discussion as to the amount is understood to be now proceeding between His Majesty's Consul at Amoy and the local Chinese authorities.

  Whisky.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue officials do not discriminate in their accounts between pot-still and patent-still whisky, the distilleries being in almost all cases distinct; and whether, in view of the importance to the wholesale spirit trade in this country that this information should be given to the public, he can state the quantities of pot-still and patent-still whiskies produced in England, Ireland, and Scotland, in the years 1886, 1897, and 1906 respectively; and, if it is impossible to furnish this information for the past, will he issue orders for the facts to be ascertained and circulated in future.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,): No discrimination is at present made between pot-still and patent-still spirit, and consequently no departmental records exist from which a Return of the kind named could be made for past years. If legislative authority were given, it would be possible for the Department to keep a record in future of the quantities of spirit distilled by pot-stills and patent-stills respectively. But such a record would afford no evidence of the relative quantities used for potable and other purposes respectively, still less of the relative quantities used for a particular spirit, such as whisky, and other potable spirits. For the total product of patent-stills is applied only partly to purposes of "drinking" spirits, and the distribution of such part, as is so applied, between the several classes of potable spirits, gin, whisky, compounds, etc., cannot be determined.
  MR. MYER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us which is the least injurious kind of whisky?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no information as to that.

  Stamp Duties.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take into consideration the amount of revenue that would accrue to his Department each year by a 1 per cent tax upon the Stock Exchange transactions; and whether he will consider the justice of this proposal.
  MR. ASQUITH: I will take care not to lose sight of the possibility of a readjustment of the Stamp Duties in all their aspects.

  Inspectors of Vivisection.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the salaries paid to the English inspectors of vivisection, Mr. Thane and Sir James Russell; whether out of 2,506 operation experiments made last year, only fifteen were witnessed by the senior inspector; whether the Home Office grants vivisection licences on the recommendation of the Research Association; and whether

  1805
  this association exists for the protection and promotion of vivisection.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone,): The remuneration of the inspector under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, is 500 guineas, and that of the assistant inspector 350 guineas. The number of operation experiments witnessed by Mr. Thane in 1905 was fifteen; the number was smaller than usual in consequence of the inspector being absent on sick leave for some weeks. Among the objects of the Association for the Advancement of Medicine by Research are the protection of the interests of licensees and the publication of literature on the importance of research. Applications for licences and new certificates are sent to the association for observations; but the Secretary of State forms his own opinion in each case, after considering the reports of his own expert advisers, and the responsibility rests with him.
  MR. SMEATON: Is not the salary of the Irish inspector £50 a year?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of any Question involving figures.

  Devon Constabulary.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that four retired military officers are at present holding the rank of superintendent in the Devonshire Constabulary, one of whom has just been appointed chief constable of the count; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps to discourage such outside appointments.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe the hon. Member's statement is correct, though I have no official information in the matter. My approval is not required for the appointment of police superintendents; their selection is vested by law in the chief constables, who act in such matters under the general control of the Standing Joint Committee of the county. The matter is one entirely in their discretion, and I cannot undertake to interfere with them.

  Licensing Compensation.
  MR. MACLEAN:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that holders of six-day licences, and also holders of licences with an early-closing condition attached, have to pay compensation charges under the Licensing Act of 1904 at the same rate as holders of seven-day and full-time licences; and will he take steps to grant to holders of six-day and early-closing licences remissions on compensation charges similar to those allowed on the excise licence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that the reading of the law stated in the first part of the Question is correct. If so the suggestion in the second part could not be carried out without legislation, and I can only say that I will note the point for consideration. This construction of the law has not been challenged since the Act came into operation, but it is open to any licence-holder affected, if he thinks the construction wrong, to take legal proceedings with a view to obtaining a decision.

  The Convict Rayner.
  *MR. J.WARD: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of Horace George Rayner, found guilty of murder at the Central Criminal Court, and whether he will take into consideration the unusual and peculiar circumstances and history of the case with a view to mitigation of the extreme penalty of the law.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, in all these grave cases, circumstances such as those to which the hon. Member has alluded are taken into very serious consideration.

  Railway Rates.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a further pronouncement to the House as to the action he proposes taking to remove the disabilities placed, on British trade and agriculture by the freight rules and rates of British railway companies.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs): I have already informed my hon. friend of the inquiries which I am causing to be made both at home and abroad with regard to the questions in which he is interested. These inquiries must necessarily take some time. I am therefore not yet in a position to make any announcement as to the action the Government propose to take on the subject of railway rates and rules. I should welcome any information which my hon. friend or anyone else interested in the question may be in a position to supply.
  MR. MONTAGU: Have any inquiries yet been instituted?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope to be able to begin them very soon if I can get assistance from the Treasury.

  Alien Bankrupts.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the number of bankruptcies reported to have taken place among aliens resident in this country, he will obtain from the Registrar General information as to the gross loss to creditors arising from such bankruptcies during the last five years; how many aliens have been made bankrupt in that time, and how many of these cases occurred in London; what is the average payment to creditors of native and alien bankrupts respectively; how many alien bankrupts have been found not to have kept books in the same period; what is the average proportion of assets to debts as between native and alien bankrupts; how many bankrupts have been Russian subjects; and how many have stated that, prior to their insolvency, they made their business over to their wives or other relatives.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I have already informed the hon. Member, no separate statistics for alien bankrupts have been kept by the Board of Trade, and I am unable therefore to furnish the information desired.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Registrar Link later only yesterday, in referring to the number of
  1808
  alien bankrupts appearing before him, said he could hardly believe he was presiding over a British Court. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware also that the facts and figures referred to in the Question were laid before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration two or three years ago by the Registrar General, and could he not now have them brought up to date?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that of course his Department had nothing to do with the Registrar-General, but his attention had been called to the statement of the Registrar. He thought he might himself undertake to say that they should be brought to the notice of the Departmental Committee on the subject.
  SIR W. EVANS-GORDONasked whether he might bring before this Committee any facts in his possession.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he would be glad if the hon. and gallant Member could see his way to give evidence.

  Washburn Valley Afforestation Scheme.
  MR. O'GRADY:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in the matter of men applying for work upon the Washburn Valley afforestation scheme under the Leeds Distress Committee, he has official information showing that 293 were offered employment, 139 accepted, 102 commenced work, and 56 threw it up soon after; what is the present number of men at work; whether, in view of the conditions of life in the country, he will ascertain whether 11s. is not too much to deduct from the men's wages of £1 per week for board and lodging; and whether, seeing that this experiment in afforestation is subsidised by the Local Government Board, he will give instructions that the men will be allowed the same privilege as those at Hollesley Bay of returning at stated periods to their homes free of railway fares.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns, Battersea):The Answer as regards the figures referred to in the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The number of the registered unemployed men who are at present

  1809
  engaged on the work is fifty. I have made inquiry as to the sum charged for board and lodging, and I find that the distress committee are satisfied as to its reasonableness. The payment for board is, however, an optional one, as it is competent for the men, instead of making it, to provide and cook their own food, but I understand that none of them have adopted this alternative. I could not undertake to interfere as to the arrangements made for the men to visit their homes. I am informed that originally it was arranged that the men should return home only once a month, and that at the same time they should go in search of permanent employment, spending at least one day for that purpose. The majority, however, preferred to visit their homes at the end of each week.

  Vaccination Results.
  MR. LUPTON:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if Dr. Fletcher is paid for reporting on cases of illness following vaccination; if formerly similar reports were published; and on what ground of public policy such reports are kept secret notwithstanding the wish of the parents for publicity.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Dr. Fletcher is one of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board, and is paid an annual salary for the discharge of his duties, which, like those of the other medical inspectors, include the occasional investigation of cases of illness alleged to be due to vaccination. Some of the reports of the inspectors were communicated to the Royal Commission on Vaccination, and the facts contained in certain of these reports were published by them; but since the final Report of the Commission, no further reports of the kind in question have been published. The reports of necessity often deal with the acts of family history of individuals, and must, I think, be treated as confidential.
  MR. LUPTON:If there is no desire on the part of the families concerned to keep the reports private why should they not be published?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no evidence that that is the view taken by the families affected.
  MR. LUPTON: I say they do desire to have the reports published.

  Sussex Vaccination Case.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mable Ellen Wenham, of 14, St. Nicholas Lane, Sussex, born 5th June, 1906, was vaccinated in September, 1906, by Dr. Burbidge, public vaccinator, and died on the 19th March, 1907; that fourteen days after vaccination sores broke out under the ear and elsewhere; that the child was treated firstly by Dr. Vallance and secondly by the dispensary doctor, then taken to a hospital at Brighton, and finally sent home incurable; and that the child was perfectly healthy before vaccination; and if, in consequence of the number of deaths following vaccination, he will stop the issue of vaccine matter until some stuff, free from danger, has been invented.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My attention has been called to the case referred to and I am making some inquiry with regard to it. I could not undertake to stop the issue of glycerinated calf lymph, and I may remind my hon. friend that it is not necessarily the case that because a death follows vaccination it is therefore due to it.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that the medical officers of the Local Government Board are now making investigations with a view to finding a less injurious stuff than that now used? Why not wait until they have discovered it before issuing any more of this lymph to the public?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no such information as the hon. Member professes to have.

  The Grant for the Unemployed.
  MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say if the £200,000 voted for provision of work for the unemployed has all been expended; if not, can he state the amount spent; and whether all the distress committees have been granted the sum they applied for and proved to his satisfaction they could utilise to advantage for the purpose the money was intended.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As regards England and Wales, the sum of £85,395 has actually been paid to the Central (Unemployed) Body and the distress committees; but some further payments, the precise amount of which I cannot at present state, will be made before the end of the week. I have made payments out of the grant in all cases in which the distress committee showed that there was exceptional need for assistance in meeting the cost of providing or contributing to the provision of temporary work, and a scheme of work was proposed of which I could approve. I should add that I agreed that a sum of £21,050 out of the grant should be allocated to Scotland and Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the allocation of the amount set apart for Ireland?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no precise information, but I believe the Chief Secretary has been doing his best to see that the amount allocated has been wisely spent.

  Norwood Poor Law School.
  MR. L. HASLAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many children in the Lambeth Poor Law school at Norwood have been, and are at present, affected by the recent outbreak at that school of diphtheria, scarlet fever, and whooping cough, respectively; and if any cases have as yet been fatal.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My hon. friend is, I think, under a misapprehension in this matter. I understand that, with the exception of six mild cases of whooping cough, five of whom are convalescent, there has been no recent outbreak of the diseases mentioned in the Question at the school, nor has there been any death from them. At present, there is not a single case of diphtheria or scarlet fever in the school.

  Boarding-out of Pauper Children.
  MR. L. HASLAM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in consideration of the fact that Poor Law guardians may make arrange-
  1812
  ments for the maintenance of Poor Law children in such institutions as Dr. Barnardo's Homes; and, seeing that the boarding out of children with foster parents is satisfactorily and more economically carried out by the managers of such institutions, will he consider the advisability of empowering, under regulations, Poor Law guardians to arrange for the boarding-out of Poor Law children under the auspices of such institutions.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I note the suggestion of my hon. friend. I may state, however, that it has previously been brought under the notice of the Local Government Board, but there are difficulties in its adoption, and they have not seen their way to giving effect to it.
  MR. L. HASLAM: Considering that the expenditure of public money may be reduced by one half by these means, will the right hon. Gentleman further consider the matter?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Boarding-out is now tried, but the institutions in which the children are placed have to be certified.

  Canadian Postage Rates.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON:I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the terms of the agreement made with Canada regarding the postage on newspapers and periodicals has been settled; and whether he can now state to the House of Commons the outlines of the arrangement which has been arrived at by the two countries.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton, Tower Hamlets, Poplar):No arrangement has yet been made; but I cannot make any further statement in regard to this matter at present.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Will it be in a short time?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I cannot say at present.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the matter come before the Colonial Conference?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I should say not. It is a question between the Government and Canada solely.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will it be discussed with the representative of the Canadian Government on his visit to this country for the Conference?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am unable to say.

  Post Office Insurance.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS:I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has taken or whether he is about to take the necessary steps to enable the general public to acquire insurance policies affecting life, fire, accident, and other forms of insurance, upon the security of his particular Department.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have appointed a Departmental Committee to consider "whether it is practicable, and if practicable, whether it is desirable, for the Post Office to provide facilities for the insurance of employers in respect of their liabilities under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, either generally or subject to limitations; and further to consider whether it is desirable that steps should be taken to encourage the use of the present life insurance system of the Post Office; and, if so, what steps." Lord Farrar is chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire is a member, and the Post Office, the Savings Bank, the Treasury, and the National Debt Commissioners are represented.

  Merionethshire Schools.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the elementary schools recently erected in Merionethshire for children whose parents objected to the manner in which the denominational schools in the neighbourhood were conducted, and known as revolt schools, were erected with his concurrence and approval; and, if so, whether any of the sum provided in the Estimates for building elementary schools will be spent on the Merionethshire schools.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna,): So far as I am aware
  1814
  the schools referred to in the Question were not provided as public elementary schools, and in any case were provided previously to my appointment as President of the Board of Education. With regard to the last paragraph, I cannot add anything to my Answer to the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division on the 11th March†.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these schools are recognised by the Department for the purposes of the grant?
  MR. McKENNA: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Teachers in Non-Provided Schools.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask President of the Board of Education whether the decision at which he has arrived, namely, that where managers of non-provided schools have in the exercise of their duty engaged teachers on such terms as they think satisfactory and the education authority has hold aloof, the education authority has deprived itself of any solid ground of criticism, applies in cases where the managers have gone so far as to raise salaries in denominational schools to a level with those paid in provided schools in the same district; and to what extent this decision will interfere with the policy of discrimination between provided and non-provided schools adopted by the great majority of Welsh education authorities, and with their refusal to contribute from rates towards the maintenance of schools not under their full control.
  MR. McKENNA:The statements in my hon. friend's Question are not my decision but mistaken inferences which he has drawn from a decision I gave in the Swansea case. I cannot express any opinion as to what conclusions may be drawn from an erroneous hypothesis.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words I have used in the first part of the Question are those used by the Attorney-General?
  MR. McKENNA: I am not aware of that.
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 1261–2.

  House of Lords Buildings.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the new lift for the House of Lords buildings, which was to be provided at an estimated cost of £700, has been provided, and, if so, is it at all used; and is there a man in charge at 30s. per week, and has he anything to do.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt,): The lift has been provided, but I believe it is not yet extensively used. There is an attendant who receives the wages stated, but he has other duties in the building besides working this lift.

  Worcester Election Petition.
  MR. HEMMERDE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the result of the recent proceedings which took place at Worcester, before Mr. Justice Bigham, on appeal from a decision of the Royal Commissioners on the Worcester Election; and whether a full Report of such proceedings will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if so, when.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,)was understood to reply that the evidence had already been laid in full, but he would obtain a copy of the judgment and allow any hon. Member who wished to see it.
  MR. HEMMERDE: According to a report I have in my hand, some further evidence was taken beyond that already laid on the Table of the House.
  SIR JOHN WALTON:I will look into it; I can only go by the official record.

  The Corrupt Practices Act.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I wish to ask the Attorney-General a Question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been drawn to the tyrannical dismissal of workmen from the works of Messrs. Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, in consequence of the part they took in the recent municipal election; whether he is aware that the men now dismissed received notice after a former election
  1816
  in which the manager was a defeated candidate; and whether he will take steps to institute a prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Act.
  SIR JOHN WALTON:My attention has not been called to the subject of this Question, but if the hon. and gallant Member is right in his statement that the action of the employers in regard to their workmen was due to the votes they gave during the municipal election an offence will have been committed against the Corrupt Practices Act, and if the evidence on which he relies is brought before the Director of Public Prosecutions it will receive consideration.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I will bring the facts before the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Make a statement outside.

  Gravesend Water-Guard Inspector.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if a naval officer has been appointed to the position of water-guard inspector at Gravesend; and, if so, whether this is a departure from the past practice of promoting an experienced assistant inspector to such positions, which was an encouragement to capable men to enter the service and fit themselves for the highest duties of their profession.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. Runciman,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. It is not the case that, as suggested in the Question, vacancies as water-guard inspector have hitherto been exclusively filled by the promotion of assistant inspectors, nor does the present appointment imply any discontinuance of the practice which the Board of Customs have always followed of giving due consideration to the claims of deserving subordinate officers in filling the superior appointments in the water-guard branch of this service.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Would it not be a good thing to keep these appointments within the coastguard service itself instead of going outside?
  MR.RUNCIMAN: Every consideration has been given to the circumstances of this appointment, which, in my opinion, is a highly proper one.

  Doncaster Land Tax Commissioners.
  *MR. C. NICHOLSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Smith, the clerk to the Land Tax Commissioners of Doncaster, has declined to send a notification of the appointment of Mr. Mark Dowson as Land Tax Commissioner to him, although Mr. Dowson has been duly appointed under the Act of last session and his name has appeared in the London Gazette; and what steps he proposes to take in order to enforce the carrying out of Section 1 of the said Act.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Section 1 of the Act of last session does not direct clerks to Land Tax Commissioners to send to each Commissioner a notification of his appointment. It has, however, been the practice of the clerks for many years to send such notifications, and I cannot understand why an exception should have been made in this case. If my hon. friend wishes I will call the attention of the Commissioners for the district to the matter.

  Birds and Agriculture.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been called to the demand for a departmental inquiry into the feeding habits and utility of birds; and whether the President contemplates action.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We have received certain representations on this subject, but my noble friend does not think that it is necessary to institute a formal inquiry into the matter. We are, however, considering the advisability of inviting the agricultural correspondents of the Board and other competent observers to supply us with information as to the utility or otherwise of the birds in their localities.
  *SIR PHILIP MAGNUSasked the hon. Member whether he was aware of the fact that recent investigations had tended to show that certain wild birds fed to a very large extent on fruit buds, thereby injuring the crops of the fruit-growers in this country. Would he consider the desirability of appointing a small Departmental Committee to inquire into the effects of the Wild Birds Protection Act?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am quite aware that that is the case. I would refer the hon. Member to the latter part of my Answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When the hon. Gentleman is inquiring about birds will he extend his inquiries to the habits of croaking ravens?

  Scientific Agriculture.
  MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the President of the Board of Agriculture has considered the importance attaching to further development of national research into scientific agricultural problems; and whether any consideration of such research will be included in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee just appointed.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The question of scientific research into agricultural problems has for some time past been engaging our close attention, and I hope that some practical steps may be taken in the near future with a view to the improvement and extension of existing arrangements. The facts of the case are, however, well-known, and there would have been considerable disadvantages in enlarging the scope of the reference to the Committee in the manner suggested.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, why the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Education has been limited in its terms of reference to England and Wales.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My last Answer was intended to cover this Question also.

  Norwegian Trawlers.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Norwegian Minister claimed all those trawlers whose masters were illegally prosecuted as Norwegian vessels; and whether he can name any trawlers now fishing in the prohibited waters outside the three-mile limit of territorial waters in the Moray Firth which are British-owned, or which have a majority of English fishermen amongst the crew.
  THE SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,): The intervention of the Norwegian Minister was limited to the cases of Norwegian subjects who had been prosecuted for illegal trawling. With reference to the second part of the Question, what trawlers there may be now fishing as suggested by the hon. Gentleman I am unable to say.

  Scientific Investigations in the Moray Firth.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what are the reasons alleged by the Scottish Fisheries Board for advising that the waters outside the territorial limit of three miles should be enclosed in the Moray Firth and British vessels prohibited from fishing there, and whether any scientific investigations have been carried on in the prohibited waters; and whether the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland have stated that whilst the Moray Firth by-law is legal under the Scottish Act of 1889, the Act is not in accordance with International Law, or the North Seas Convention of 1882, or the Schedule of the Fisheries Act of 1883.
  MR. SINCLAIR: When By-law No. 8, closing the waters inside a line drawn from the Ord of Caithness to Buckie was passed, the chief reason submitted in support was: The primary object in making the by-law was the great desirability of preventing the capture of immature fish by trawlers, which it was believed existed in considerable numbers in the closed area. Similar arguments were advanced when By-law No. 10 protecting the whole of the Firth was passed. Scientific investigations have
  1820
  be enconducted within the Firth. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask what scientific investigations have been carried on?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Scientific investigations of more than one kind, and very largely by the "Goldseeker," which is the vessel conducting investigations for this country under the International Scientific Investigation Scheme.

  Scotland and Agricultural Education.
  MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why Scotland is excluded from the terms of reference to the newly-appointed Departmental Committee on Agricultural Education; and whether he will use his influence with the President of the Board of Agriculture to have those terms widened so as to embrace Scotland.
  MR. GULLAND: At the same time may I ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that agricultural education is necessary to the success of small holdings, why Scotland has not been included in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Education.
  MR. SINCLAIR: In Answer to these Questions, I have to state that, in view of the recent establishment and marked success of the Agricultural Colleges at Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen, and of the organisation which they are developing for bringing home to farmers in all parts of their districts the latest results of scientific research on the subject of agriculture, such an inquiry as that proposed does not seem to be necessary at present in the case of Scotland.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why Scotland has been excluded from the terms of reference of the Committee on Agricultural Education; and whether he intends to appoint an independent committee on agricultural education in Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have to refer the hon. Member to the terms of my Answer to-day to Questions on this subject by the

  1821
  hon. Members for the Falkirk and Dumfries Burghs. I do not think it necessary at present to appoint an independent committee for Scotland.

  Scottish General Aid Grant.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland on what date the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education in Scotland met to discuss the distribution of the general aid grant for 1907; how many members were present; and will he give the names of the members who were present.
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is contrary to precedent and practice to give such particulars as to meetings of any committee of the Privy Council.
  MR. SMEATON: Does this committee ever meet?
  Mr. SINCLAIR: I can add nothing to the information I have already given in my Answer.

  Alness Ferry Tenancy Dispute.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE:I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the late Mr. Kenneth Cameron, after having been tenant for thirty-eight years of a croft on the Newhall estate of Mr. Shaw Mackenzie at Alness Ferry, Ross-shire, received notice to quit next Whitsunday on the ground of his advanced age; that a similar notice has since his death been given to his sons; that Mr. Cameron, without any assistance from his landlord, reclaimed the whole of the farm from the moor, drained it, fenced it, and erected all the buildings upon it; and that he and his sons offered to pay nearly quadruple the existing rent; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing into the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill a clause providing a remedy in cases of this kind.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information in regard to this case other than that now furnished by my hon. friend's Question. The facts as stated present a very hard case; and I regret that so far it has not seemed possible to provide protection for such cases in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.

  Training of Scottish Teachers.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Provincial Council for the Training of Teachers in Glasgow is refusing to grant assistance to teachers who propose to attend the vacation courses abroad in modern languages on the plea that no funds are available, notwithstanding the fact that the funds which were regularly employed for this purpose in past years by the County Committees on Secondary Education have now been transferred to the Provincial Councils.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not aware that any Provincial Committee has refused to grant assistance to teachers proposing to attend vacation courses abroad, but in any case it is not the fact that the funds which have hitherto been available to County Committees for this purpose have now been transferred to Provincial Committees.

  Scottish Catholic Teachers' Pension.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the provisions relating to the pension fund in the present Education Bill, place the teachers of Catholic schools in Scotland in as good a position as the teachers in other schools; and, if not, whether he will take steps to safeguard their position.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I must refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Bill, which will be circulated to Members shortly.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it proposed to make any provision for these teachers in the Bill to be brought in shortly?
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members in two or three days. I have declined the requests of hon. Members to state in advance its provisions, and I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to wait until he sees the Bill. It has gone to the printers.

  British Trawlers under Foreign Flags.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on Thursday morning,

  1823
  the 7th instant, a Wick boat, the "Endeavour," W. K. 621, John Sinclair, skipper, came ashore, and reported damage of six nets by a trawler's dan, about five miles off Wick; whether the trawler which was working at the time was the "Campania," of Stavanger, S.R. 4, apparently a Norwegian; whether the dan was painted "Campania, Grimsby;" and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect the Wick fishermen.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The facts are substantially as stated by my hon. friend. Section 7 of the Act of 1885 seems to provide for the procedure which may most conveniently be followed in cases of this kind, and I am in communication with the Fishery Board as to whether this is a case in which the fishery officer could advisedly for his part adopt the course of action indicated.
  MR. MORTON:Is it the fact that the fishery officers at Wick neglected to report this case to the Scottish Fishery Board until I had put this Question on the Paper? Has he since reported and assessed the damages at £15?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not aware there was any ground whatever for the hon. Member's statement.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is this "Campania," Norwegian or Grimsby owned?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I will inquire.

  Irish Trade Returns.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to state when the table of Irish exports and imports for the year 1905 will be published.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Birrell,): The compilation of the tables of imports and exports from Ireland in 1905 has been almost completed, but it will be several weeks before the report is ready for presentation to Parliament.

  Irish Fishing Brand.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1824
  of Ireland whether the Report of the inquiry as to the necessity for a brand for Irish-cured fish has just been presented; what were the conclusions arrived at, and will the Report and the evidence taken be published.
  MR. BIRRELL: The evidence taken at the local inquiries referred to is being printed, and there will be no objection to its publication. No Report on the evidence has yet been made, nor have definite conclusions been arrived at. The Department of Agriculture will give full consideration to the evidence, and will consider the question of publishing a report on the matter.

  Inchigeela Letter Robbery.
  MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Monday, 18th March, a postman was waylaid by disguised men near Inchigeela, county Cork, and robbed of a number of letters supposed to contain writs for service on the Grehan estate, and whether anyone has been made amenable for this offence.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that the fact is as stated in the Question. The police have not yet succeeded in making anyone amenable for the offence.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Are they being discouraged in their efforts?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, they are not.

  Rineen Fishing Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will undertake the construction of a suitable pier at Rineen, near Waterville, county Kerry, with a view to extending the fishing industry.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have recently considered the question of constructing a pier at Rineen with the object of extending the fishing industry. The estimated cost of a suitable work is not less than £4,000, and having regard to the state of their funds the Board have been compelled to decide against taking action at present.

  Stewartstown Disturbances.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at a demonstration organised by the Ancient Order of Hibernians at Stewartstown, county Tyrone, on Sunday last, a serious disturbance took place, and a police officer was injured; if so, whether this disturbance was in any way due to the display of a Union Jack by a loyalist in the town; and whether this Union Jack was hauled down, and by whom.
  MR. BIRRELL: There was no demonstation at Stewartstown on Sunday last. The hon. Member probably intends to refer to a demonstration which took place on Monday, 18th March, when a slight disturbance took place, and a police officer received slight injury. The police authorities inform me that the disturbance was not due to the display of a Union Jack. A large red flag bearing the word Stewartstown, and having a small Union Jack in one corner, was displayed by the opposition crowd which had assembled, and the police officer responsible for the preservation of the peace requested the owner to remove it, as its display in the circumstances was calculated to lead to a serious disturbance.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: inquired whether the flag displayed was not a red flag with the Union Jack in the corner; was it not usually known as the Royal ensign, and was the use of that flag to be publicly condemned?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My information is that it was a red flag bearing the word "Stewartstown." It has a small Union Jack in one corner, and whether that answers to the description of the Royal Ensign I will leave the hon Member himself to say.
  Mr. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the disturbance which occurred was not entirely due to an attempt being made to prevent the original meeting, which had been long advertised, being held.
  Mr. BIRRELLsaid that no doubt a second meeting was arranged long after the first had been advertised. He had seen reports of the proceedings,
  1826
  and he was satisfied that the police had behaved with great courage, sense, and discretion in the matter.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: again pressed the question as to whether the Red Ensign in future was to be condemned if used on such occasions.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think the Royal emblem ought to have the word "Stewartstown" upon it.

  Irish School Buildings.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say out of what funds the school buildings to be erected under the proposed new grant in Ireland are to be maintained, cleaned, and heated when they are in use.
  MR. BIRRELL: National schoolhouses vested in the Commissioners of National Education are kept in repair by the Board of Public Works. When school premises are vested in trustees, it is the duty of such trustees to keep the house, furniture, etc., in repair. For the maintenance of non-vested schools the local persons interested in these schools are responsible. In all ordinary national schools, whether vested in the Commissioners, vested in trustees, or non-vested, the cost of cleaning and heating is provided from local sources.

  Education Report.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he proposes to comply with the request to publish the Report made by the Committee of the Commissioners of National Education, the Intermediate Board, and the Department of Agriculture during the Chief Secretary ship of the right hon. Member for South Dublin.
  MR. BIRRELL: My predecessor fully considered the question of laying this Report on the Table, and decided that it was not worth while to present it to Parliament. I am of the same opinion.
  MR. MURPHY: Seeing that the Report would enable the Irish Members to see what the Irish Education Board recommended, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think that would be the result. The Report would not be of value to anybody.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: This is the Report of a body consisting of representatives of educational authorities. Would it not be as well to let the Irish Members see it?
  MR. BIRRELL: I cannot depart from the decision of my predecessor. The Report would really throw no light on the subject.

  Civil Rights of Irish Teachers.
  MR.MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will at once recommend the Commissioners of National Education to amend their rules as to the civil rights of teachers in Ireland so as to make them reasonable; and whether he can suggest to the Commissioners the advisability of removing existing obstacles interfering with the Irish National Teachers' Organisation in communicating with the Board by deputation or otherwise on matters relating to primary education in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: I will at once make representations to the Commissioners of National Education upon the subject of the rules referred to.

  Donegal Fishery By-laws.
  MR. CHARLES MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that if the new by-law passed by the Board of Agriculture with reference to the Donegal Fisheries comes before the Privy Council in Ireland on Appeal, that body must either confirm or reject the by-law altogether and cannot vary it; and whether he will further consult the Board of Agriculture with a view to inducing it so to modify the by-law as to remove the objection taken to it by the people of Donegal.
  MR. BIRRELL: The by-law in question has already been lodged for the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council, and the matter is, therefore, sub judice.

  Evictions at Kingston.
  MR. MOONEYasked if the Irish Secretary would adopt measures that would prevent the numerous evictions threatened by Irish peers in the Kingston Urban District, seeing that 123 poor families were about to be turned out through no fault of their own.
  MR. BIRRELL: replied that he had no power in the matter. It was only fair to the landlords to say that the buildings in question became insanitary during the currency of long leases when they had no power to interfere, while the local sanitary authority which had the power refused to exercise it.
  MR. MOONEY: Is it not the case that in eighty-two of the 132 cases the buildings are absolutely new?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire.

  British Museum Reading Room.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the effect upon a great many students and literary men and journalists of the closing of the reading room of the British Museum for six months, whether accommodation will be found for them elsewhere.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (Stirling Burghs): I have nothing to add to the Answer given to a similar Question yesterday by the First Commissioner of Works in reply to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Islington East.†

  The Defence Committee.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury of how many members the Defence Committee consists; and whether he is able to state the names of its members to the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Members who ordinarily attend the meetings of the Committee are:—(1) The Prime Minister; (2)The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; (3) The Secretary of State for War; (4) The Secretary of State for India; (5) The Chancellor of
  †See (4) Debates, clxxi., 1655.

  1829
  the Exchequer; (6) The First Lord of the Admiralty; (7) The First Sea Lord of the Admiralty; (8) The Director of Naval Intelligence; (9) The Chief of the General Staff; (10) The Director of Military Operations; (11) Lord Esher; (12) General Sir John French. As explained by the late Prime Minister, other Members of the Cabinet and officials who possess special knowledge on subjects under consideration are asked to attend meetings of the Committee from time to time.

  Lord Esher.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Lord Esher, in his capacity as a member of the Defence Committee, has power to require the production to him of any and all such confidential Papers from the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Foreign Office as he may call for; and, if so, whether Lord Esher exercises this power.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Lord Esher receives only Papers which are circulated to the members of the Committee on subjects under discussion, or about to be discussed. He has no power to call for any Papers from any Department of State, and nothing of the nature suggested is possible.

  Small Holdings.
  MR. BECKETT: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire, I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with the provision of small holdings in England.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet fix a date for the introduction of this Bill.
  MR. BECKETT: Are we to understand that the attentions of the Prime Minister are to be confined to the corpus vile of Lord Rosebery?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am a Scotsman. I do not understand, and I do not see the joke.

  Blocking Bills.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Prime Minister
  1830
  if he was prepared to propose a new Standing Order to prevent a Member having a notice to bring forward a Resolution being deprived of his opportunity by the presentation of a Bill on the same subject by another Member.
  SIR H.CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I sympathise with the object of my hon. friend, and I will consider if anything can be done to meet the case he refers to.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: Would it not be possible to deal with the matter during the present debates on procedure?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that Question.

NEW BILLS.
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (APPLICATION OF PENALTIES) BILL.
  "To provide for the payment to the Fishery Board for Scotland of the penalties or other moneys recovered in respect of illegal sea fishing in Scotland," presented by Mr. Sinclair; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]
  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate Whale Fisheries in Scotland," presented by Mr. Sinclair; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE) (EASTER)
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House (Easter), if under discussion when the business is postponed, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of business.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)

  POST OFFICE (LIVERPOOL AND HONG-KONG MAIL CONTRACT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Contract, dated the 2nd day of February, 1907, with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the conveyance of the mails between Liverpool and Hong Kong, for the period from the 7th day of April, 1906, to the 6th day

  1831
  of April, 1908, printed in House of Commons Paper, No. 76, of Session 1907, be approved."—(Mr. Runciman.)
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid the reason why this Motion had come before the House was because of the important Standing Order, No. 72, which required that all contracts for conveyance of mails by sea should be approved of by the House of Commons. It was important to go back to the origin of the contract. It began in 1889 in rather a curious manner. A petition in its favour was in that year circulated among Members of the House by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The contract was defended on the general ground that it was advantageous to us from a military and naval point of view. The petition was largely signed, and he contended that it was a bad thing that the agents of a railway company should be allowed to frequent the lobbies of the House asking for signatures in favour of a contract which would put money into the pocket of a company. At that time the country and the House of Commons were filled with the idea of an "all British route," and they went to great expense to establish a British cable. The contract was never regarded as a Post Office contract; it was a naval and military contract, and conditions were inserted for the carrying of troops and gun platforms, etc. In 1889 the Treasury became exceedingly suspicious of the whole scheme. Their Minute said—
  "The scheme is not justifiable upon postal reasons alone."
  Despite that, the Post Office was charged with the bulk of the subsidy. The total subsidy amounted to £60,000, of which Canada contributed £15,000 and the Admiralty £7,312, the Post Office paying the difference. The whole essence of the question was that a rapid through service from this country to the Far East should be assured, and if they were not satisfied upon that point the whole scheme was worthless. As he had said, the Treasury were not certain of the matter. In 1889 they said—
  "Some difficulty was felt with regard to the Atlantic portion of the line, the control of which is entirely in the hands of the Dominion Government. Satisfactory assurances were, however, given by that Government that the necessary acceleration of the service should be secured."
  1832
  Twelve years later, in 1901, when the contract expired, the Treasury again reported—
  "At the time when the contract of 1889 was made it was anticipated that the Canadian Government would before long secure a considerable acceleration of the Atlantic service. That expectation has not been realised."
  The contract had been running for twelve years and the expectation of a fast service had not been realised. Despite that, however, the contract was renewed for another five years, viz., to April, 1906—
  "To allow further time for the attainment of the object in view."
  During all that time also, the object was not realised, and the fast service did not begin until July last. The position was that the Canadian Pacific Railway had received £60,000 a year on the understanding that a fast service would be established, and it had not been established. They had received £60,000 a year for seventeen years and that, if hon. Members cared to work it out, amounted to over£1,000,000. £1,000,000 had been paid to the shareholders on a specific understanding which was never carried out, and he submitted that that £1,000,000 was virtually obtained on false pretences. In 1902 they had very similar arguments in favour of the contract to those used in support of the original contract. It was again pressed upon the House because of political considerations, and the Admiralty were again a party to the contract. It was, however, strongly opposed by several members of the Radical Party in 1902. They had changed their geographical position in the House, and he would be interested to know whether they had also changed their opinions. They were asked to renew the contract for another two years. It expired on 7th April last. Had the company been receiving any money in the interval; if so, by what authority? Had they been performing services in the interval; if so, who paid for them? Because the words of the contract of 1901 were precise. It absolutely expired on 7th April, 1906, and it provided that if a journey undertaken on 7th April was not completed, the company were to be under the obligation to complete the journey and not receive any payment. If any money had been spent in the interval, he would

  1833
  suggest that, it had been illegally paid; and he might point out that if it had not been paid, he could not see what was the urgency for pressing this Motion now upon the House. If they could wait eleven months before renewing the contract, why not wait thirteen or fourteen months? He submitted that if an illegality had been committed, it could not be wiped out merely by a new contract between the Postmaster-General and a railway company. At any rate it was a slipshod system of finance against, which the House ought to protest. They had no right to let a contract lapse, and come twelve months later and try to wipe out past laches by voting money in this way. Tin House had one important function above all others. They were the guardians of the public purse, and if they did not stop financial irregularities when brought under their notice, there was no limit to the burdens which might be put upon the taxpayers. He submitted that the contract could not be any longer defended on military or naval grounds. The Admiralty refused to pay another penny towards the system. They had been paying £7,000 a year; they refused to pay any more; they would have nothing whatever to do with the contract; they did not want the ships; they did not want the guns; they wanted to go out of the business altogether. The War Office were equally contemptuous of the whole business. According to a Treasury Minute no recommendation had been received from the War Office. They might be told that the Canadian Government wanted the contract. He thought that was very likely. But could they in this matter separate the Canadian Government from the Canadian and Pacific Railway Company? They had to remember that the Canadian and Pacific Railway Company was a very powerful corporation, employing large numbers of voters, controlling large areas of land, and able to advance or retard the prosperity of whole districts in Canada. Could the Canadian Government afford to quarrel with such a company? He thought not. And he confessed that he thought the subtle interests of the railway company extended even beyond Canada. Hon. Members might have noticed during the
  1834
  past few months paragraphs circulated in the Press about the possibility of running a fast service of steamers from an Irish harbour in Galway to Canada. Anybody who knew anything about the west coast of Ireland knew perfectly well that the idea of getting a fast service of steamers from Galway to Canada was highly improbable. So far it would appear that the Canadian and Pacific Railway Company desired to give the impression that a service was to be created from Ireland. He was told that they were having a survey made for a railway across county Mayo. He hoped his Irish friends were not deluded by this enterprise of the Canadian and Pacific Railway Company. The enterprise might cost a few thousands of pounds, but a very large sum was at stake. He believed that in this instance the company asked for a renewal of the contract for ten years—that was to say, a sum of £600,000 was at stake. The survey for a railway in county Mayo would not cost £600,000, even if it cost £6,000. He sincerely hoped that Irish Members would not be led away by the tactical suggestion that a fast steamboat service was to be started from Galway. At any rate, they would find that it was an absolute delusion. Nor could this contract be defended on any general principle of supplying a new shipping route. The whole question of shipping subsidies had been inquired into by a Select Committee, which had strongly reported against, any general system of subsidies other than for services rendered, as costly and inexpedient. If they accepted that doctrine, let them apply it to this particular case. There were many steamship routes which might plausibly be subsidised which would be of convenience to this country, but this particular route as wanted for mail purposes was absolutely useless to us. No British manufacturers would ever dream of sending goods across Canada by rail; it would be absolutely out of the question; Canada no doubt might use such a route for her commerce with the Far East; but, what was more important, America might utilise it; at any rate, the existence of this subsidised route, from Vancouver to Japan and China, must

  1835
  have the effect of lowering the freights for steamships conveying American goods across the Pacific. In other words, we were to-day using our money to subsidise a steamship route which gave our competitors, the Americans, an easier entry into the China market. That was rather a serious thing, considering that so large a portion of our goods went to the China market, and that the China market was so important to our cotton manufacturers. This question came before the House solely as a Post Office contract and nothing else. Unless it was used by the Post Office it was absolutely of no use at all. He ventured to challenge the Postmaster-General to rise and tell them frankly that if he were a free agent he would pay £45,000 a year for this service. At any rate it was the view of the Treasury that it was an unjustifiable claim. In answer to a Question which he put to the Postmaster-General the other day, the right hon. Gentleman told him that the total receipts from this route for letters other than mail matter, including receipts from foreign countries, amounted to £11,400. For that he had to pay £45,000 a year—four times as much as he received. That hardly seemed good business. What did they get in return? They were told that they got an alternative route to the Far East. Yes; but it was a route over which the steamboats travelled only once a month, whereas by the Suez Canal the service was six times a month. Even if the actual time taken for the journey were less, that route would always be relatively neglected, because anybody posting a letter would select the mails by the Suez Canal which would go at once, rather than wait until the Canadian route mail started, unless it; was just about to leave. He might point out that they had one alternative route to the Far East, and that was by the Siberian Railway. Our letters would certainly get more quickly to the Far East by that route. But that was not all. The Postmaster-General was now paying £7,000 more a year for this service than before because the Admiralty had ceased to pay anything. What did he get for the additional £7,000? He would say that he got additional speed; but that would be
  1836
  inaccurate, because additional speed was stipulated for in the contract. For seventeen years they had been paying money for additional speed, and they had never got it. It was no defence to say that they were now getting the additional speed; that was included in the original bargain, which was never fulfilled. He admitted that the Postmaster-General was getting the carriage of mails from Liverpool to Canada. That cost about £650 a year; so that he was getting £650 a year, and he paid £7,312 in order to get it. That certainly was a brilliant bargain for the Pot Office and the Treasury to make. He contended that the contract involved a scandalous waste of the taxpayers' money. Only last week, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had explained to the House what difficulty he had in persuading the Treasury to give him £40,000 a year for building schools in Ireland. They all knew how seriously money was wanted for many purposes. They knew how many schools were under-staffed for want of money; they knew how teachers were badly paid; yet while they had that difficulty in getting £40,000 for Irish schools, they were pouring £45,000 a year into the pockets of the shareholders of the Canadian and Pacific Railway Company, whose shares were up to 170 or 180. The company, therefore, was not doing so badly, yet they were subsidising this booming property, while schools were under-staffed, while money was wanted for all sorts of purposes, and while the country was still under the burden of taxes imposed for the purposes of the war. Might he remind the House that many taxpayers were extremely poor people; yet they were taking their money from them in order further to swell the already swollen profits of a wealthy corporation? Might he venture also to remind Members on his side of the House that they were all returned pledged to economy? If those pledges were not mere idle phrases, he appealed to every Liberal Member present to follow him into the lobby in condemnation of this contract.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. Runciman,): thought the hon. Member

  1837
  based his views on several important misconceptions, one being that this contract was the renewal of an old contract. It ought to be clear from the Treasury Minute that this was not a renewal of the old contract but a new one altogether. The conditions of the new contract were wholly different. It was not fair to describe this as an old contract. The Government had made a better bargain than their predecessors. It was in effect a new contract. The conditions were different, and it was made for a shorter period in order that it might be treated as experimental. The old contract provided for the carriage of mails from Halifax to Hong-Kong and Chinese ports. Now the mails were to be carried from Liverpool. The period under the old contract was ten days longer than under the new, the period of the journey having been reduced from forty days to something under thirty days in summer and thirty and a half days in winter; so that very substantial advantages had been secured. His hon. friend had pointed out that the Admiralty had dropped out of the contract altogether. It was because the old contract was indefensible that the Admiralty decided last year that they would have no part in this except in so far as they could secure advantages for seamen and officers who might wish to travel by this route. So far as the present contract was concerned, the Government were getting exactly what they paid for. They were getting vessels from Liverpool to Halifax or Quebec, they were getting a service across the Canadian continent, and steamers to Hong-Kong and Chinese ports, so that it was scarcely fair to say that the present was a renewal of the old contract. The acceleration of the service was one advantage, and a larger range of ports was another. In China there had been added a large number of new ports which were all mentioned in the Treasury Minute. It had also been secured that in the case of general average the mails which were carried aboard these vessels should not come into calculations made for general average purposes. In case of damage no lien could be exercised on the mails. There were also a large number of clauses all of which provided for the extension of the service if the General Post Office required it. Then it would be
  1838
  noticed that the schedule which provided for the purchase of the vessels run by the Canadian Pacific Company was altogether done away with. The Admiralty had entirely changed their views with regard to merchant cruisers, and they were now more likely to purchase vessels in the open market than to make contracts far ahead, as they did some years ago in the case of the Cunard Company. The changes made had in fact turned this into a new contract. No payment in respect of it had to be made during the coming financial year. So recently as January this year the Treasury wrote to the Post Office to the effect that they desired that before any payment was made the approval of the House of Commons should be obtained, and it was for that approval that they were now asking.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Is the provision for this money taken under the Appropriation Act?
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he understood that this payment would be provided very largely out of the savings and would be covered by the Appropriation Act.
  MR. MYER: Is the payment retrospective?
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid if the hon. Member would allow him he would explain the exact position. The payments which might be made if this Resolution was agreed to would be made very largely out of savings. The service had been going on since July of last year. Up to July the vessels were running on the old contract, which did not fully expire until then. One quarter had to be paid for under the old contract, and for that provision was made in the Estimates for 1906–7 by the allocation of £17,000, and that amount had been paid over. But the amount in respect of the new contract had not yet been paid, although the contractors had been pressing for payment. The payment would, of course, be retrospective, as the service secured since July last year must be paid for. His hon. friend had asked why any payment should be made in respect of this contract seeing that it was not a profitable contract. At the present time it was not

  1839
  a profitable postal contract; but the improvements which had taken place since July of last year led to the belief that the statistics under the old contract were not a very reliable guide to the possibilities under the new. So far as could be ascertained, the improvement during the first quarter of 1907, in comparison with 1906 under the old contract, amounted to something like 300 per cent., and that increase might, of course, go on throughout the present year. He was sure the House would realise that the Treasury were quite prepared to admit that in dealing with this contract there was no immediate profit to be got out of it; but, having secured a very largely accelerated service and a larger range of ports, and having made arrangements for the mails to be taken from Liverpool and taken immediately on delivery in Canada across, the Canadian continent by train, they felt that they had been able to do something which might advantageously affect the whole of the mail service to China and the Far East. Therefore, he thought the question of the postal advantage might very well be deferred until they had had twelve months experience of the new contract. The hon. Member for Preston had asked why they did not exercise the same generosity in regard to Irish education as they had done in regard to this contract. In regard to the Irish question, which was disposed of on Saturday last, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. It was true the Government then announced a grant of £40,000 for new elementary schools in Ireland during the next year, but the Treasury was not squeezed into doing that, but they did it of their own free will. In February a question on that point was put to him by the hon. Member for East Mayo and early in March an arrangement was made that £40,000 should be devoted to that service. The contract was entered into on a temporary basis for two reasons. The first was that the Treasury were prepared to give the new terms of the contract a chance; and the second was that it was impossible to carry on the discussion of the matter purely between the General Post Office here, the Postmaster-General in Canada, and the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Government
  1840
  considered that their interests were largely involved, and had strongly pressed the Government to accede to their request that the contract should be made and given a full trial, and that, if necessary, the matter could be discussed at the Colonial Conference. The Government felt that they could not refuse that request. As they were to have the whole matter threshed out at the Colonial Conference, and as they ventured to think that there would be increased traffic, they were justified in having a two years contract, which would afford a means of testing the new service. The Treasury had been perfectly frank in the matter from the beginning. The Government still held the view that to pay anything in the shape of subsidies for which they did not get a quid pro quo was entirely inconsistent with their policy.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he had listened to the statement made by the Financial Secretary with intense interest. He had been perfectly frank in the matter, but he wished to ask whether, in making this contract, there was no consideration of a possible military service.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: None whatever.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: thought that if the contract was based solely on the service rendered at the present time by the Canadian Pacific Railway it ought not to have been made. He did not think the basis was purely economical. His hon. friend had pointed out that the cost of this service represented £3,461 for every journey from Liverpool to Hong Kong. That was an enormous sum, and whilst he was in favour of a proper payment for services rendered he thought that was an undue payment. If he went into the lobby in favour of the resolution he would do so in the full belief that other considerations had entered into it. [An Hon. Member: In spite of the statement to the contrary.] He was speaking now of the pressure put upon the Home Government by the Canadian Government. Of course he saw the position with which the hon. Gentleman would have to deal if the contract were put on any other basis. It would raise the whole question of subsidies

  1841
  for Imperial reasons. He still believed that originally this contract was to some extent a subsidy. [Cries of "Oh!"] There was nothing unfair to the hon. Gentleman in that statement; he had presented the case for the Treasury very clearly. No one could have presented it better, but there were other things to be said. The question of subsidies was an important one. He believed that this was a subsidy as well as a payment for postal services. He believed that if they were going to have subsidies at all, they should be entended to the steamships trading with West, East, and South Africa, and all other steamship services which gave advantages to the people of this country and the Colonies. He supported that kind of thing. He would like to associate himself with the Treasury Bench in such a policy. He submitted that it was just such a policy which the hon. Gentleman had presented to the House that day. If this payment was not intended alone for services rendered to the Postal Department, it was for military and strategic reasons, and also for Imperial reasons. He thought those Imperial and strategic reasons were perfectly sound, and therefore he would support the contract. He hoped his hon. friends on that side of the House would support it also. He supported it on the general principle that these subsidies were very good things. If there were reasonable subsidies now on the East coast of Africa our commercial position there would be better than it was at present. The same thing was true of West Africa. He fancied that they had also more or less incorporated the principle in the contracts made for the services with the West Indies, and somewhat in those with West Africa. In spite of everything which had been said, this Government was more or less committed to subsidies, at any rate, in respect of payments in excess of the value of the services rendered for carrying mails to the different portions of the Empire. He suggested that hon. Members interested in the question should press the Government for a clear statement of policy, in order that they might fully understand everything behind the contract and be able to judge of it.
  *MR. RIDSDALEsaid the hon. Member for Gravesend had informed
  1842
  the House that he intended to support this contract, and he had been good enough also to state that he did not do so in consequence of any reason given from the Treasury Bench, but on account of some unknown and imaginary reasons which he thought might be at the back of the proposition. In other words, he said that the contract was so foolish on the face of it that he would not have supported the question before the House but for the fact that there seemed to be something at the back of it beyond what had been stated by the Government. He (Mr. Ridsdale) thought that, if the House of Commons was going to pass it, it should have reasons apparent on the face of the contract. They were asked to pay away £45,000 annually of the taxpayer's money to a corporation, a Colonial corporation which he would wish to see supported and successful, but one which already was successful, rich, and powerful probably beyond any other Colonial railway company. The Canadian Government, no doubt, gave £15,000 a year towards it, but it might have its own reasons for doing so. One thing was clear—we were going to lose over it. Why should the Admiralty deliberately discontinue their contribution to the company, if there were any strategic advantages to be derived from the contract? They would not give any longer £7,000 towards it.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I said "for military reasons."
  *MR. RIDSDALEsaid that that was even more hypothetical than the other reasons for which the hon. Gentleman supported the contract. He could not stretch his imagination to think what they might be. The Post Office, they were told, was now entering upon a new contract and was getting a better bargain—was qua post office, paying £7,000 a year more for the advantages which we were getting! The House had had read out to it what the advantages were. There was the acceleration of the service, but it was small.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Ten days out of a journey of thirty days.
  *MR. RIDSDALEsaid that at rate it was not quicker as regarded Hong-Kong than the Brindisi route, and the Brindisi route offered six services in the month of four weeks whereas this only offered one.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to speak under a misapprehension. It does offer very special advantages for all Chinese ports except Hong-Kong, and there it takes about the same time.
  *MR. RIDSDALEsaid he understood that people who wrote letters did not much value these advantages since the great bulk of the correspondence travelled by the Brindisi route and not by the Canadian-Pacific. He imagined that, if the advantages were so great, the bulk of the correspondents would be only too anxious to send all their letters by the Canadian-Pacific route; but the figures given showed that they sent their letters by the Brindisi route. He admitted that it was a better bargain in one respect. It was to be made for a shorter period—for only two years instead of twelve. If they were going to make a bad bargain they had better make it for as short a period as possible. The contract had cost the country over £1,000,000, and it was high time they made an end of it. They were returned—he spoke as a Liberal—to endeavour to supervise some of the extravagances of the last Government, and he was not going to vote for any single form of extravagance which he might have clearly pointed out to him, even if it was pro posed by the Treasury Bench. He thought this was a case in which the Government followers might intimate to their leaders that strict supervision must be exercised over the Estimates, and that they did not intend to pass any items which would not bear the closest scrutiny.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the Secretary to the Treasury had used a somewhat remarkable argument. He had said that if they passed this Motion to-day it would tide them over the Colonial Conference. He would have thought it one of the most profitable subjects of disussion there.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I think that is what I said.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked whether it would not have been better, then, to wait for the discussion at the Colonial Conference, instead of passing this Resolution to-day. It would have been better not to have anticipated the decision of the Colonial Conference by a vote of that House, but to have waited until they had the whole of the particulars before them and then brought it to an issue. In the matter of steamship subsidies to Colonial mail lines it was important that the House should regularise its ideas of policy. To that extent he entirely agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had a precedent in the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was Secretary for the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had to consider the question of continuing the subsidy of £70,000 a year paid to the Royal Mail Company in connection with the West Indian mails, and he found himself so embarrassed by the number of competitors that he ultimately came to the conclusion that the best thing was not to pay the subsidy at all, and so the Treasury benefited to the extent of £70,000 a year. His hon. friend, in bringing forward this Motion, was in a difficult situation. What was really the position? Here they had a rich and prosperous railway; he supposed it was one of the most prosperous in the world. It had an expansive power which had already been amply demonstrated, and it was able by the leasing of the fertile territory through which it passed to add enormously to its profits. The railway happened to be in Canada, and they were by this contract subsidising a prosperous railway company to enable it to carry on a joint steamship and railway enterprise in different parts of the British Empire. There were parallels to that sort of thing in other countries. Germany had adopted a policy of the kind, as to which an able article had appeared in the Commercial Supplement of The Times. The German Government owned the railways, but, not content with that, it had used its power as owner of the railways to initiate steamship enterprises, in which the railways and the steamship companies were so mixed up

  1845
  that no one could tell which was which. The result was that through railway and steamship rates were quoted by Germany to ports in the Levant and to different parts of the world so low that great complaint was made in England of the severe competition that British exporters had to meet. It would be interesting to know whether the accounts of the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers were kept separate from those of the railway. Were they separate enterprises? The Government were admitting the principle adopted by the German Government without exercising the control which the German Government exercised over the railway. Again, if the policy was right in Canada, why should it not be right in England? Why should they not give a subsidy to the English railway which performed the useful function of initiating a steamship service to Ireland? As a business man, he thought money spent in subsidies to particular lines of steamers might be more profitably employed in improving harbour accommodation and terminal facilities, and putting our ports on a basis to compete with the heavily-subsidised and well-equipped ports of the Continent.
  MR. HERBERTsaid that the hon. Member for Gravesend had admitted that this contract could not be supported on economic grounds, but on grounds only known to himself, which, however, were repudiated by the Secretary to the Treasury. It was really immaterial whether this was a new contract or a continuation of an old contract; but it was obvious that we were not getting value for our money. The Secretary to the Treasury had just taken the figures out of the old contract and put them in the new contract in the hope that in the future we might get value for our money. He protested that that was not the way in which any contract should be made. The price should be fixed according to the business at present being done, and not according to the amount of business that might possibly be done in the future. He was glad that the Prime Minister had come in, for he was sure they would receive his support in regard to the matter.
  MR. HARWOODsaid that the hon. Member for East Toxteth had asked why the Government did not wait until after the Colonial Conference, and then decide to come forward with a definite proposal. But he would remind the hon. Gentleman that this was a continuance of a policy which had been carried on for twelve years.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that the old contract came to an end in April last year, and it had been pending ever since.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the contract had not been pending since last April. The Government made the new contract in April last year, and the new service started in July last.
  MR. HARWOODsaid he was not talking at present about the contract but about the policy of the Government. It was not a new policy. At the end of twelve years the Government might have said, "We will stop this business altogether," or "We will make a new contract for a short time, and then we will see what terms we can make." The Secretary to the Treasury had said that the Government had actually got better terms. The hon. Member for East Toxteth had argued that it would have been better to wait until after the Colonial Conference had met, but it should be remembered that the Conference would not meet until after the end of the financial year. His own belief was that the Government had taken the course which any business man would have taken in the matter. There were many considerations to be taken into account in connection with this alternative mail route. It was capable of great development, and he thought it was more than possible that it would give a better and shorter mail service to certain ports in the Far East than at present. The Secretary to the Treasury had given the House grounds which justified them in expecting that things would improve in the immediate future, and he hoped that the friends of economy would not push their theories beyond the limits of common sense and ordinary business prudence.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman,): pointed out that this was only a temporary contract to last over a certain period, when it could be discussed and a new arrangement, possibly, shadowed forth by the Colonial Conference. The Government were no advocates of subsidised services of this kind, where an absolute equivalent for the money spent was not received. In this case, whether the contract was regarded as advantageous or as disadvantageous, it was undoubtedly a better contract than that which it superseded, because the conditions were better in several respects. So that something had been gained. The object with which the contract was entered into was simply to have a provisional arrangement in the expectation that some new arrangement of the whole question would be made when the opportunity arrived this spring to discuss the matter fully with the Canadian authorities. The contract had been in operation since last July, and the Government were bound to continue it. But the Colonial Conference would take place soon, and then there would be an opportunity of arriving at an arrangement more to the mind of hon. Gentlemen. Considering that it was only to tide over the time till a thorough and lasting arrangement could be made, there should be no hesitation in assenting to the Resolution, which must be passed before the end of the month.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid that he was in favour of the contract for Imperial reasons, because Canada desired it. It was worth while entering into the contract for those reasons, even at considerable pecuniary sacrifice. But it was desirable that the country should know why Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House supported the Resolution. It was not for any of the reasons given by the Secretary to the Treasury. As a commercial transaction it was certain that this country did not get the best of it; but the matter was perfectly simple. We were rightly paying a considerable sum without getting commercial value for it for Imperial considerations. The reasons for the contract ought to be frankly stated; and the Government had not
  1848
  frankly given the true reasons. They were sound, but the Government had not the courage to state them.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that the postal services rendered under this contract probably did not account for the amount of the subsidy, but there was the other side of the question to be considered. The first question was whether the services rendered were adequate for the amount of money paid. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had said, there had been great acceleration of the service, the time having been reduced from forty to thirty days. There was also the question of trade routes. This line was the only line running from Canada to the other side of the Pacific, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company could in consequence to some extent command their own terms. He was not at all certain that the amount of the service did sufficiently account for the large-amount of the subsidy, and he confessed that he had some doubts as to whether the services were sufficient to account for the sum of £45,000. But there were further considerations. There were cases in which Imperial considerations came to the front, and the Report of the Steamship Subsidies Committee, of which he was Chairman, set out that in rare cases, in view of special Imperial considerations, subsidies were necessary for establishing fast direct British communication; and, at the moment, they reported that such a subsidy should be favourably considered for a line to East Africa, where there was no direct British service, and where British trade was handicapped by the subsidies given by foreign Governments to foreign lines. As to whether the circumstances here justified the making of a contract on these lines he did not pronounce an opinion; before he did so he would like to hear a little more about trade in the Pacific; but the fact remained that some contracts, in rare cases, had to be made by the Post Office. He thought the particular case of East Africa was still as important as it was at the time of that Report. The circumstances did demonstrate the necessity of having a fast steamship communication to the Colonies of the British Empire which

  1849
  were situated there. Attention had been called to the fact that Chili was being served by German lines. That was done by the lowering of rates, and as soon as the British lines were starved out the Germans raised their rates.
  MR. BOWLES: on a point of order, asked whether if would be competent for an hon. Member pecuniarily interested in the Canadian Pacific Railway to take part in a division on this question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The rule of the House is that any Member who has a direct, personal pecuniary interest of a private and particular and not of a public and general nature, makes himself liable, if he votes in such a way as to advantage his interest, to have his vote disallowed. Whether the vote should be disallowed or not is a matter for the House, at a subsequent stage, to determine.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: If an hon. Member holds ordinary shares in the Canadian Pacific Railway, is he precluded from voting?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That would be a matter for the House to decide.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked what was the date of this agreement. Was it not the fact that there had been no agreement since last April, and that the present agreement, made in February, was only ante-dated?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. There was a provisional agreement, equally binding, before this contract was drawn.
  LORD R. CECIL: Suppose the House were to withhold its approval?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: It would simply be dishonouring the cheque of this country. We are in honour bound to make the payment to the Canadian Pacific Railway for the services under the contract.
  MR. HAROLD COXasked why a Supplementary Estimate could not be introduced to pay the company for the services rendered.
  MR. SEAVERNSsaid that although he proposed to support the Government in this matter he would do so with feelings of considerable dissatisfaction. As he understood the position, this was a contract entered into on commercial grounds only. It had been preceded by two other contracts which had existed for ten and five years respectively, both of which had been most unsatisfactory in their result. As a business man he held that it would have been in accordance with business principles, if the Government desired to make a subsequent contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway, for them to have insisted that it should be made for a sum that would result in a benefit accruing to this country.
  MR. HAROLD COX,: in order to avoid a division, asked whether he might understand that if any further contract was to be entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway the House would have an opportunity of considering it in advance, and that the contract would be placed on a business footing.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I cannot give such a pledge. It has never been customary for any contract to be discussed in advance. The Government are quite well aware of the feeling of the House and will endeavour to meet it.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Then, might I put it this way—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken four times.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I only desired to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Member will get another hon. Gentleman to ask it for him.
  MR. GUESTsaid that, as he understood, the Prime Minister had in fact said that when this contract, which was of a provisional character, terminated, the Government, having heard the debate, would be prepared to make a very different contract. [Cries of "No."] Yes. This was one of those inexplicable

  1851
  muddles into which every Department occasionally seemed to lapse. What the explanation was he could not say, but he thought the Secretary to the Treasury would be very careful how he came down in the future with an appeal for economy, at the same time putting forward such a
  contract as that to which the House was now asked to assent.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 22. (Division List No. 99.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Grant, Corrie

  Nolan, Joseph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Hall, Frederick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Radford, G. H.

  Bell, Richard

  Harwood, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHarnlets, S. Geo.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Boland, John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Branch, James

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rees, J. D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Higham, John Sharp

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Brigg, John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Jackson, R. S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshre

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Lambert, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingham

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Liddell, Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin S

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Verney, F. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Killop, W.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Waring, Walter

  Dunne, Major E Martin(Walsall

  Marnham, F. J.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Elibank, Master of

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Erskine, David C.

  Menzies, Walter

  Wiles, Thomas

  Essex, R. W.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Montagu, E. S.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Tellers for the Ayes—

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Murphy, John

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Myer, Horatio

  NOES

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hudson, Walter

  Jenkins, J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Snowden, P.

  Tellers for the Noes—

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Mr. Hodge and Mr. George Roberts.

  O'Grady, J.

  Thorne, William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—put, and agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (EASTER).
  Motion proposed,—"That this House at its rising, this day, do adjourn until Monday the 8th April."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
  *MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he desired to call attention to certain matters appertaining to the administration of the Unemployed Workmen's Act. It was true that at this time distress was not so acute and the summer was near, but they had to look beyond the summer to the winter which would follow it. At the present time many distress committees created under the Act had ceased operation altogether. The Act itself required re-modelling, but, it would not be in order to enter upon the discussion of new legislation. He respectfully submitted that up to the present it was not so much the Act which had broken down as the administration of it. Weak and ineffective as the Act was, it had not had a fair trial; its limited powers had not been put to the fullest use. He thought they were entitled to some explanation from the President of the Local Government Board as to the reasons which had induced his Department to refuse all assistance towards making special provision for unemployed women. Under the Central Body in London a sum of money had been expended to provide work for unemployed women; but similar applications from West Ham had been refused, and the President of the Local Government Board had informed them that it was not intended to make any further grant from the £200,000 in the way of encouraging special provision of work for unemployed women. The matter seemed to him a very serious one, and they were entitled to some explanation. He had said that the Act was not being used to its fullest extent; all was not being taken out of it that was in it. But that was only half true. Recently the administration of the Act had been weakened. It was less effective this year than it was last year, or the year before. That was not due to
  1854
  any falling off in the nature of the operations of the Act. Everybody who knew anything of the question was aware that the distress committees had never been able to make provision for more than the merest fraction of the numbers applying for assistance. In Woolwich there was more distress and unemployment than there was three or four years ago, owing to the large number of discharges from the Arsenal. He would take Woolwich as illustrating his point that the Act was not being so vigorously administered as formerly, although the need for it was greater than it had been. The number registered at present as seeking employment was 1230, but the number registered was no real gauge of the actual number requiring employment. Men had become sick of registering without result. They underwent a more or less insulting—he said that advisedly—cross-examination before they were allowed to register at all, and, having registered, they had to wait month after month, and, as he knew personally, from year to year, without employment. As a result, men were treating the whole thing with contempt, and they were not going near the office to register. In the winter of 1904–5, during the first year of the Act, the number who registered was 1,001, of whom 318 were provided with work. The average work found for them was three weeks per man. The borough council had a special work in hand, and the number of weeks work provided by the distress committee during the winter was 3,001. That was, out of 1,000 applicants only 318 were employed. In 1905–6, the number registered was 1,900, an increase of 900 over the former year. Of that number 128 found employment as against 318. The average period of work given to them was two days per man, as against three weeks in the previous year. Now they came to the current year, 1906–7, when the number registered was 1,252, while the number for whom work was found was eighty-one, the average period of work being one and a half days per man.

  1855
  He submitted that they had there a fairly typical case, but not typical in this respect, that employment in Woolwich was lessening, whereas in the rest of the country it had grown somewhat. They had the fact that while the number of applicants had been increasing, the number of men for whom employment had been found was decreasing, and the length of the period during which work was provided had also been going down. Let him anticipate a possible objection. It had been said that with the coming of the summer the unemployed would be absorbed; that men were unemployed during the winter owing to seasonal causes, and as the building trades became brisker, the surplus labour would be absorbed and the unemployed difficulty would cease to exist. That was true to a certain extent of the building trade, and of out-door occupations. Let him, however, give one illustration drawn from a manufacturing town. He would deal with an industry in which machinery was largely employed. In the borough of Leicester there were 1,412 persons on the unemployed register and under the distress committee. They came almost exclusively, or at least largely, from the boot and shoe industry and were men who at one time followed a highly skilled occupation. Their being out of work was not due to any lack of demand for leather goods. He had statements from manufacturers in Leicester in which they affirmed that the output of goods was greater and the demand better than it had been in any former period of the town's industry. He hoped it would never be said, as he had heard it said before, that the cause of unemployment in Leicester, as in similar manufacturing towns, was due to our free trade system, because manufacturers in Leicester whom he had visited and questioned on this very point, were practically unanimous in saying that whilst tariff reform might injure the boot trade it could in no sense help it or improve the demand for labour. Mr. Alderman Thomas Smith, chairman of the distress committee, and a manufacturer, gave as his opinion that unemployment in the boot and shoe trade and the hosiery industry was largely due to the displacing of men by machinery.
  1856
  Mr. Councillor Jabez Chaplin, secretary of the Hosiery Union said—
  "The men are out because machinery displaces male labour and employs child and female labour. Owing to improvements made in the Griswold Knitter, only one girl is now required to work four machines, i.e., four different operations. When hand machines were in use the wages paid for knitting a dozen pairs of socks was 3s. 6d. The introduction of the rotary machine brought this down to 2s. Then came Cotton's patent reducing the price to 1s. 4d. Then Griswold's Knitter, bringing the price down to 8d.; and finally Spier's Knitter (fully automatic) reducing the price to 4d. per dozen."
  They did not complain of cheapening the cost of production. He must make himself right on that point. He quoted that as showing how machinery was increasing production, and unless they could show that demand was correspondingly increased it followed that there must be a displacement of labour. With this automatic machinery one girl was able to attend four machines, whereas in the old days a man worked a single machine for himself. The same thing was taking place in the boot and shoe trade. Thirty-three per cent. of the workers had been displaced recently by the introduction of what was called the clicking machine. Mr. Lilburn, secretary of the distress committee of Leicester said—
  "The principal cause of unemployment in the boot and shoe trade is that men are being displaced by machinery;"
  and he made this very startling statement—
  "The age at which workmen are dismissed starts at thirty."
  At thirty years of age in that particular industry, men were becoming too old to find employment. Mr. Parker, a Labour member of the board of guardians, said that a man of forty years of age found the greatest difficulty in obtaining employment, being regarded as too old and unable to sustain the severe pressure put on workmen under modern industrial conditions. He thought it would be admitted that a man of thirty or forty years of age, in good working condition, should not necessarily require to be thrown out of work. But the explanation was given by Mr. Alderman Banton, J.P., of Leicester who spoke of the team system

  1857
  recently brought from America, and introduced into the boot and shoe trade He said—
  "A boy of sixteen is put on a machine making one section of the boot only, and working for boy's wages. When he arrives at the age of twenty, the master is bound by the agreement arrived at between himself and the trade unions, to pay that youth a minimum wage of 29s. This the former refuses to do as he can get another boy of fifteen or sixteen to work the machine. The consequence is that at the early age of twenty this young man becomes one of the unemployed, and absolutely unfit for any trade, having been taught nothing but to make a certain section of a boot or shoe."
  The secretary of the National Boot Union had stated that boys and girls were being employed with these machines to the exclusion of the grown up heads of families. That disposed of the allegation so frequently made that the unemployed were unemployed because they were unskilled workmen. That was a case where skilled workmen—so far as it could be called skilled work—were being displaced to make room for unskilled youths who were taken on because they accepted boys' wages of a few shillings a week, and because the employer could get almost as much out of them as out of men. The question of child labour in that industry was mainly a question of wages. As to the willingness of the unemployed to accept work, he raised the point because it had been said in the House that out of the hundreds of unemployed that had been offered work at Leeds only a few had accepted it. It had been inferred that the reason that those men did not accept the work offered to them was that they belonged to the wastrels—not in the political but the industrial sense. The Leeds afforestation colony was situated in the Washburn Valley at the watershed of the Leeds Corporation Water Supply, and was seven miles from the nearest railway station. The only accommodation provided for the men was a bungalow in which there was no stove. There was accommodation for forty-eight men and when they came in from work wet, as they many times did, there was no proper accommodation for drying their clothes. He did not need to remind hon. Members that the unemployed that went to work in that place were not overburdened with wardrobe and they had no change of clothes. What about the wages? The wages
  1858
  were 20s. for a forty-eight hours week. That was the wage allowed by the distress committee, but out of that was deducted 11s. a week for board on the spot. He was aware that the President of the Local Government Board had told the House that the men were not compelled to board in the bungalow but could buy their own food; but when it was remembered that the place was in the middle of the moor, seven miles from the nearest railway station, it was difficult to see how the men could buy their own food. Eleven shillings a week went for board, and a further shilling per week was deducted for a pair of boots supplied at a net cost of 12s. 6d. The men were allowed sixpence a week pocket money. The balance of the weekly wage was paid to the wife and family in Leeds. Of the 7s. 6d. so paid, probably 3s. 6d. would go in the renting of a single room. Four shillings a week would thus be left to provide food, clothing, and everything else for the man's dependents. It would be admitted that under these circumstances the conditions were none too enticing. The men went to the Washburn Valley from Leeds, many of them wretched and ragged. Some had only an old coat and an old pair of trousers on, and they were emaciated with hunger. Under these circumstances it was no wonder that they did not accept work in the depth of winter. Perhaps men in better physical condition, or in better circumstances, would have been only too glad to accept work. The fact remained that something like fifty of these men were working there now, and that they were doing the work as cheaply, and at no more cost to the distress committee, than was the case when the work was done by the regular town-council employees. He submitted that, given proper training, the unemployed could competently perform the work given them in exchange for an honest, or fairly honest, wage. But to take men direct from the slums and place them in the middle of a moor in the depth of winter, poverty-stricken and naked, and expect them to be fully equipped for the work, was to expect too much of human nature. Attempts had been made to train these men before putting them on the land, and they had been so successful that he thought they ought to be encouraged. There were

  1859
  many places where there was a real need for assistance, but as no money could be raised locally no grant could be made by the Local Government Board, and the consequence was that nothing could be done for the unemployed in those districts. Newport in Monmouthshire was a case in point. There the distress committee made out a case to the local Government Board for a grant, and were refused. Despite the refusal, and because of the distress, there had been a second attempt, but before making that second application they issued an appeal for funds to assist the unemployed. With the exception of a promised donation of £10 from the hon. Member for Newport himself not a single copper had been given. They had at Newport some 300 men registered as wanting work, and hundreds of others who had not been registered. The charitable had closed their purse against the unemployed. The complaint was that the Local Government Board had refused a grant, and nothing could therefore be done to assist the unemployed in that locality. It would be remembered that no wages could be paid under the Unemployment Act out of the rates, but that land could be acquired for farm colonies. The £200,000 grant was to supplement voluntary effort. Subsequent to the grant being made a circular was issued to distress committees stating that the money was only to be given in order to supplement the money raised locally by private charity. That had worked out so that where there was real need for work being found for the unemployed and where no money could be raised locally, no grant had been given, and, as a consequence, nothing had been done, or could be done, for the unemployed. If that stood alone it would be quite enough, but he quoted it as typical of others. There was a worse case under the Scottish Department, which exemplified the way the Act was being administered by those responsible for it. In Glasgow unemployment had been acute, and still continued to be acute, despite the employment in the shipbuilding industry. The distress Committee under the Glasgow Town Council applied to the Scottish Department of the Local Government Board to obtain permission to acquire land for a
  1860
  farm colony under the Act. They thought there could be no possible objection raised to a proposal of that kind. An inspector was sent down to examine various estates, and finally one was selected which was partly bog and partly rough land, on which a number of men could be profitably employed. The cost of the estate was about £7,000 or £8,000, and formal application was made to the Local Government Board to sanction the purchase. The money was going to be paid out of the local rate—not even a loan was asked for. To the astonishment of the Glasgow Distress Committee the application was refused. Mr. T. Faulkner Stewart, Secretary to the Local Government Board, Edinburgh, had written in answer on the 18th March—
  "Regarding the proposals for the Distress Committee to acquire different farms for the purpose of the Unemployed Workmen Act I am directed to express the Board's regret that they cannot see their way to sanction any scheme of this nature."
  It was not only that they objected to that particular bit of land being acquired, but any scheme of that nature the Board could not agree to, and the reason given was that the Act expired on 12th August next year, and that to embark upon an undertaking which might be permanent under a temporary Act would be bad policy. Surely, so long as the Act existed, and there was need for its being put into operation, it was absurd to make these pretences for not using the powers conferred by it. His contention was that it was not for the Local Government Board to refuse to agree to schemes. The work of the distress committees was to find land, and the Local Government Board ought to sanction applications of that kind; but the Board took a different attitude, and refused even to sanction a scheme for which the people of Glasgow were willing to pay. The Act was weak, and last year the Government promised to strengthen it. Promises made both in the King's Speech and by the President of the Local Government Board had been broken, and the House was entitled to an explanation. The unemployed difficulty was permanent and required a permanent solution. Now was the time, when trade was not so bad, to make plans to meet the difficulty which everyone knew was bound to come. Whether

  1861
  trade was good or bad a certain proportion of people were always out of work. The Act should be applied more vigorously, and he complained that whatever vigour had been applied had been in the direction of stultifying the efforts of those who had been seeking to make the most of the Act. More vigour must be shown by the Local Government Board in the right direction, and the old policy must be departed from. If anything were wanted to stimulate them surely the disgraceful spectacle of the last few days in London and Liverpool ought to be an incentive, when thousands of men were competing like wild animals for the opportunity of going abroad and playing the blackleg. These things were a disgrace to England, and the House had a right to expect that more sympathy and more consideration should be shown in giving the distress committees a lead in the right direction rather than in making efforts to thwart them.
  MR. CLYNESsaid that the various figures used in the last debate on this subject and the estimates based upon them showed that there were in this country at least 500,000 adult workers out of employment. On the 27th of March last year he put a Question to the President of the Local Government Board as to when they might expect the pledge given in the King's Speech to be fulfilled, and the Answer given was a distinct promise of an amendment of the Unemployment Act of 1905. Prior to the election they had a pronouncement from the Prime Minister, in which he spoke of works that could be fostered, undertaken and assisted by the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman specially alluded to public employment and a reform of the Poor Law as means by which the great distress due to unemployment might be diminished. The £200,000 granted last year was surely not given in place of an amendment of the Act. He and his friends at least took it not as a sum which was to replace legislation, but as a sum to aid for some time pending a drastic amendment of the Unemployment Act in keeping with the promises previously made by Ministers of the Crown. The present Act required a condition of destitution on the part of the applicant
  1862
  before any assistance, even in the few cases where it could be given, was given at all. The view of himself and his friends was that it was far better to prevent destitution than to promise to relieve it, or lessen it, when it appeared. They considered that in place of the unfair and numerous tests still applied in connection with the men who registered themselves as willing to work, there should be but one test for finding am an labour, and that was willingness to perform it. They submitted that apart from the suffering and distress imposed upon the individual idle worker, the fact of his idleness was itself a very great loss to society at large. It was so much wealth running to waste which wise administration and Government should prevent. They did not believe that a man should be kept out of work and in a condition of starvation merely because another man—an employer of labour—could not make a profit by purchasing his work. The absence of profit to a private employer was not a good enough reason for keeping another man unemployed altogether. It was not the individual employer who imposed duties and obligations upon the citizen. It was the State which imposed those duties. It was the State which called upon the workman to live up to certain standards, to fulfil certain obligations, to conform to certain laws, and to avoid the evil effects of vagrancy. The State imposed these conditions, and he and his friends claimed that it was the duty of the State to provide opportunities, nay, certainties, by which those obligations might be met. They had found that, in the speeches of the President of the Local Government Board, the building trade had been used, he would say as a reason, if not as an excuse, for deferring the amendment of the Unemployed Workmen Act. He found from the particulars supplied to him at Manchester that of those whose names were on the Unemployed Register not one-seventh were attached to the building trade, and further that not one-fourth came under the classification of general labourers. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the building trade as though it were a living entity, or an individual, to whom application could be made. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the building trade must put its house in order; but they could not appeal to a

  1863
  trade which was a combination of conflicting interests and individuals, and ask it to give attention to the general evils arising from a highly complicated matter. The Manchester local committee had proposed to establish a colony, the object of which was to see by experiment whether it was possible for men, by their own work on it, to maintain themselves and their families. They had appealed to the President of the Local Government Board for financial aid for that experiment, and had been refused, they did not know why. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that his action in dealing with the £200,000 voted would be judged, not by the amount of money saved, but by the benefit derived from the expenditure. He did not see why a sum of £4,000 could be sent out to establish an industry in St. Helena, for the purpose of relieving distress there, while no money could be sent down to the city of Manchester to relieve distress there. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken in terms of scorn and reproach of what was called Government relief works, but he submitted they had got beyond the days when everything could be left to the scrambling of individuals. A State responsibility had already been admitted in connection with this matter. The Government relief works on which the right hon. Gentleman poured scorn were no more degrading than the work the right hon. Gentleman was himself performing for the Government. Manual labour ought to be provided for unskilled workmen as well as for skilled employees. In their own homes the individual who corresponded to the unemployable was most cared for—the cripple, the blind, the erring one. He was succoured and helped by the rest of the household. Why could not the same principle be applied in the State? Men who were said to be unemployable deserved a better fate than was their lot to-day—to be cast hopelessly adrift. In connection with this problem he had looked at the speeches of the President of the Local Government Board delivered twenty years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman was now asking the Labour Members to accept ways and means and principles which he had condemned in the strongest terms. Surely in those twenty years
  1864
  some progress had been made; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to let their appeals fall on more sympathetic ears. It was true that they made these appeals in milder terms than the right hon. Gentleman used to do. He joined with his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil in maintaining that they could not be put off with promises as to legislation for land reform, housing reform, or other reforms. Pending legislation of that kind men and women were starving. The late Government did at least make some attempt by setting up the framework of machinery to deal with this great grievance; and it should be the pride of the successors of that Government to strengthen that Act, and so reap the fruits of legislation which would solve the unemployment problem.
  MR. L. HASLAMsaid that the President of the Local Government Board did not see his way to set apart any portion of the grant of £200,000 for his constituency on the ground that the distress there was not of an unusual nature. When he heard that he went to the town clerk and said he would like to give a subscription to a relief fund but that he did not want to be the only subscriber, because it might then be said that he was only doing it for the sake of securing votes, the last thing he would think of doing. Personally, he regretted that the list was not subscribed to, but he had only done what he thought was right in the matter. The hon. Member for Merthyr had referred to the boot trade in Leicester, but if the hon. Member would look up the Board of Trade Labour Gazette he would see that the exports of boots and shoes in February amounted to £151,000 and the imports to £65,000. He noticed that the figures worked out at £4 10s. per dozen for the imports and £2 10s. per dozen for the exports, and he would like to know why there was that difference of £2 per dozen. If America, with improved machinery, could send boots in considerably dearer, there must be something wrong in Leicester, or in other boot-manufacturing centres. The American boots must be of better quality, and he would advise the people of Leicester in the boot trade to wake up. Without the use of the best machinery

  1865
  we could not compete with other countries, and though no one regretted more than he that the introduction of machinery should have the effect of throwing people out of employment, still a good deal of machinery had been introduced in the last forty years, while there had been an actual decline in pauperism, and his belief was that more people would have been thrown out of employment if machinery had not been introduced. He agreed that there ought to be some kind of colonies where the unemployable might get improved health and be made fit for work. That would add to the wealth of the country and not be any ultimate expense at all. While, however, they were talking of the Government giving large sums of money for the relief of the unemployed, he would like to point out the desirability of economy in order to enable the State to deal with old-age pensions. To his mind that was the most important question the country had to face, and he urged members, in view of it, to be very careful in pressing on the Government schemes which necessitated large expenditure.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid the House would forgive him if he refused to go into the most interesting by-paths raised by previous speakers on this question. He wished to confine himself to the most important question of the administration of the unemployment fund. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester had stated that the Government had broken their pledge on this matter in the King's speech. He had definitely stated in August last when the President of the Local Government Board came with the proposal to give £200,000 to assist the unemployed, that he and his friends recognised that that was a redemption of the pledge of the Government in the King's Speech. Speaking for himself alone as representing one of the districts most affected, he would prefer to have the Act for the remaining year of its existence if it could be worked with more efficiency and elasticity rather than new legislation. Cases had been mentioned in which the Act had either been misapplied or not sufficient attention had been paid to the needs of the district, but there was another side to the question. He repre-
  1866
  sented the most necessitous of all the districts in the country, and there the Act was welcomed because it was the first attempt made to recognise a national desire to deal with unemployment, which, after all, was a symptom of national disease. No kind of local action could adequately deal with the question. The committee of which he was a member was told by the Local Government Board that they must appeal for funds. They did appeal and got a few shillings or a few pounds. They devised various schemes for dealing with the unemployed, and they had received the utmost sympathy and substantial support from the President of the Local Government Board in connection with those schemes. They had a farm colony which had been carried out efficiently and which he hoped would set an example to other towns. They had also received large sums of money for emigration purposes. The Hollesley Bay Colony was established through the sympathy of the late President of the Local Government Board, partly to find some kind of channel to get people back to the land. No one ever imagined that they were going to start a colony to cultivate corn or cattle. No one but a lunatic would ever attempt such a thing. They heard pleasant generalisations like those of Lord Rosebery as to people leaving the country because they wanted amusement in the towns. But that was not his experience of Hollesley Bay. There he found that a certain definite proportion of the men were quite willing, if the opportunity were given, to make a start with their wives and children. In his opinion it would be of such national advantage that they ought to encourage it by every means in their power. There were men willing to take up small holdings who were unable to obtain access to the land, and that was one reason why the particular legislation promised by the Government should not be delayed for ten or twenty years but should pass this session. Most of the wild accusations which had been made against the farm colony in Suffolk were utterly baseless. It was said that the colony was ruining the smaller owners around by underselling them. The prejudice of the farmers around was very strong against the colony, partly because it was something

  1867
  new and partly because they feared the introduction of town labourers would create discontent among the agricultural labourers. He asked the President of the Local Government Board to give them before the time came for a renewal of the unemployed grant some kind of complete and impartial estimate of the work that had been done in connection with the various distress committees. Some of the representatives of the Local Government Board had presented reports which were a mixture of prejudice and ignorance. They could not help it, because they were biassed against the breaking down of the old Poor Law system. There was a strong feeling in the House to urge the President of the Local Government Board to carry out the policy which he outlined on the Address and to bring it forward as a matter of urgency, namely the introduction of a Small Holdings Bill and a Housing Bill which, if carried out, would do much for the social betterment of the people.
  MR. HUNTsaid that one of the greatest difficulties in the way of small holdings was the inability to obtain them at such a price as would permit them to be let at economic rates. If they could be obtained at a reasonable figure there would be no difficulty in letting them. With regard to the allegation that machinery had caused a great deal of the want of employment, he pointed out that America used a great deal more machinery than this country; that the want of employment in America was not so great as here, and that the workmen there earned better wages. The Americans had certainly increased their manufacture of boots and shoes, and in spite of the 25 per cent. for carriage their boots and shoes were cheaper than those manufactured in this country. It was the gospel of cheapness which was ruining this country at the present time. It was that which was ruining the health and physique of the women of the country by causing them to work at starvation wages. But if our workpeople would have cheap foreign manufactured goods they must put up with want of employment and underpaid labour. It was that which had driven the men out of those
  1868
  industries in which they used to be employed.
  *MR. LUPTONsaid the great difficulty with regard to the unemployed was how to get money to carry out the experiments for giving employment. If his advice was followed £250,000 could be at once obtained for the purpose. It was not necessary to have any legislation to effect the saving of £250,000, which was now spent on rate-aided vaccination. If the Local Government Board gave them a free hand in the matter the local authorities would not spend the money in that way, and would therefore be able to spend it in providing work for the unemployed. Although there were among the unemployed men and women who were physically and intellectually strong, the bulk of the unemployed were below the average of the physique and intelligence of the people. How was that? The President of the Board of Trade recently stated that his department distributed 600 carcases of veal which had been used to obtain vaccine in Smithfield market every year. Those carcases ought to be consumed in the destructor, because the distribution of diseased meal must be a cause of ill health among the people. What happened was that a calf was taken into the laboratory and strapped on the operating table, its belly shaved, and 100 or 150 cuts made with a knife; it was then inoculated with stuff and about eight days after the poison had been introduced something like 150 postules were produced upon its belly. It was then taken back to the laboratory, and strapped on the table upon its back and these postules were pinched with iron pincers and pulled off. The pus was then put into glass tubes and was finally inserted into the blood of the people all over the country. The animal was then killed in order to see whether it was tuber culous or not, and if it was found that the calf was free from tubercle the matter was used for vaccination. The carcase was sent to Smithfield. There was an animal killed in the height of a fever which produced 150 postules and then the meat was sold for human food. If an ordinary farmer did

  1869
  such a thing he would be severely punished and perhaps sent to gaol without the option of a fine. Nevertheless we had these savants of the Local Government Board admitting that the pus produced in that way contained germs closely analogous to those of cancer and other organisms which might conduce to erysipelas and to the destruction of flesh. Could the flesh of this animal be in a healthy state? Was it right to go on spreading disease in this way? As long as they did that sort of thing how could they go on talking about developing science? He would show the House how this money could be saved. The authorities insisted upon the people of Croydon being vaccinated, and a large number of summonses had been issued. He had in his possession the copy of a death certificate of a child who died at the age of twenty months from a disease following vaccination. That was the sort of thing which resulted from the use of stuff the manufacture of which was so horribly cruel. Before the year 1898 the lymph used to be taken from one baby to another, but ever since that year calf lymph had had to be used and a regular shambles had been created at which a large number of calves were cruelly sacrificed every week. He could give to the House the case of a child who before vaccination was quite healthy, but had died since. The Local Government Board sent down a doctor to investigate the case, but his report had been kept secret. In the days when the officials of the Local Government Board believed in vaccination they used to publish these reports. He had in his hand the photograph of a child which had just been vaccinated, showing a horrible wound in its arm. That child had recovered, but it had been ill for seventy-two days, and it would be weak for life. They were obliged to vaccinate a child before it was six months old, and that was one of the great causes of bad teeth.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing in favour of abolishing the Acts which compel vaccination, and that is out of order.
  *MR. LUPTONhoped the President of the Local Government Board, so far as lay in his power, would stop the distribution of this pus until he had got
  1870
  some matter which was quite safe. He was absolutely the master of the situation. He had only to say that the pus had produced a death here and an illness there which were attributable to vaccination, and declare that he would not be responsible for sending out any more unless he got something which was absolutely guaranteed. He hoped no more of the pus which had caused so much death and disease would be distributed until its origin was known. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to put a stop to the poisoning of the blood of these little people. It was admitted now that the best part of the people of the nation were practically unvaccinated. They might at least allow a few generations of babies to escape—he was sure they would be a great deal bettor for it—and during the next two or three years let the medical officers of the Local Government Board try to find out a real prophylactic which would do no harm and if they succeeded he would take off his hat to them.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns,)said he had noted with interest, and some degree of sympathy, points raised by the hon. Member, but on that occasion he could not say more than that he would look into those points during the portion of the holidays he devoted to official work, and he relied on the hon. Member to remind him of the extent to which he kept his word. The hon. Member for Merthyr, with lack of knowledge and some unfairness, had adversely criticised the administration of the Unemployed Workmen Act; but that the Act had been carried out in a most generous spirit was evident from the fact that there had been no complaint from any distress committee who had submitted a scheme of work of the way in which their demands had been met. It was true he had refused to sanction unemployed workwomen's rooms at West Ham on simple grounds he had already explained. The West Ham Distress Committee had quite enough work to do with finding employment for 1,200 or 1,300 men; with looking after the emigration of from 1,200 to 1,400 people; with carrying on a farm colony, and other work. For these reasons, and because the scheme for workwomen's rooms was not good enough, he had not

  1871
  sanctioned it; and that was his answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr. If the hon. Member's remarks concerning Woolwich had been intended for the Woolwich Distress Committee instead of himself, they would have been more relevant, for he was not responsible for their work. The committee obtained its funds from the Central Unemployed Body, and every application of that Central Body had been fairly and generously dealt with. If it were the case that, out of 1,200 men registered, only eighty-one had had work found for them, the fault was not that of the Local Government Board, which granted to Woolwich the money which the Woolwich Committee could persuade the Central Unemployed Body to allot to it. On 15th March, the latest date for which a return was available, the Central Body had in hand of the voluntary fund a balance of £2,022, of the rate fund £22,199, of the Exchequer Fund £8,212, of the Hollesley Bay Fund £1,481—in round figures, the actual total being £33,916; so that, if Woolwich had been thought deserving, the local Distress Committee could have had more money than they evidently had received. Perhaps the Central Body did not think the claim of the local committee sufficiently strong. Over and above their balance of £33,916, the Central Unemployed Committee had a farthing rate undrawn upon to the value of some £45,000. It was, in the face of these figures, contrary to the fact to say that he had starved Woolwich through the Central Unemployed Body.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked how much of this surplus of the Central Committee was mortaged for schemes.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the amount mortgaged was not 25 per cent. of the total. He had given the figures for 15th March. Since then, no doubt, they had incurred obligations for further grants. The interesting observations of the hon. Member for Leicester applied not to the administration of the grant to the unemployed, with which alone he was dealing, but to the causes which were displacing men. On a proper occasion, if this subject came within his purview, he should not be disinclined to reply to some of the hon. Member's points, but they
  1872
  were not germane to the present discussion. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had accused the Local Government Board of refusing to administer fairly and generously the Unemployment Act. That was not true so far as Leicester was concerned. What were the facts? He sent a circular to Leicester in October last saying that if they wanted help they could have it if they responded to the circular. In response they asked for a sum of money and he sent them £900 as a first instalment. The next instalment he sent was £600, which made £1,500 in all from the Local Government Board. The mere fact of sending that £1,500 set into operation the execution of other works and the spending of more local money making in all a sum of over £3,000. In spite of that fact he was asked to answer the charge of starving the distress committees. At this moment, with spring upon them, Leicester had got a balance in hand of £760 including £270 of the £1,500 he had sent them, and he had received from them within the last forty-eight hours a letter from which it appeared that the distress committee did not want any more money from the Local Government Board. With regard to what the hon. Member for Merythr Tydvil had said about the Leeds afforestation scheme, he asked the hon. Member to make himself a little more closely acquainted with the facts before making such statements as he had just made. If the hon. Member would go down to Leeds as he had done and see for himself the accommodation he had criticised he would alter his view. Had he seen for himself the conditions under which the men employed at Washburn Valley were lodged and fed and worked, he would not have advanced the statements he had made that evening. He had examined on the spot the particular scheme which the hon. Member had criticised, and he could assure him that his statements were not warranted by the facts and the local labour men did not support his contention. The behaviour and conduct of some of the men at Washburn did not meet with the approval of either the distress committee or the general population of Leeds. He might say that Labour Leaders like Alderman Buckle and others heartily supported the views he gave utterance to on a previous occasion in differentiating between the honest men who were willing to work

  1873
  and those who were abusing the opportunity.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was not criticising the scheme but simply replying to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these men had been offered work and had refused to do it.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that was just his point. The hon. Member approved the scheme and therefore, he assumed, shared the view with which it was started. He had supported the scheme, and without the help of the Local Government Board it could not have been initiated or carried on. So interested were the Local Government Board in the scheme that he went all over the watershed and after inspecting it made a grant of £1,000 as a first instalment. What was the objection to the scheme? None at all. The objection to the administration of the scheme did not rest solely with the local distress committee, because they were paying the unemployed two or three shillings per week more than the local rate of wages for forty-eight hours only, whereas the local hours varied from fifty-four to seventy hours per week. Therefore the distress committee were not to blame. The accommodation provided for the men was good, and the wages paid were above the local rate but not above the Leeds rate. Therefore everyone of the criticisms directed against the distress committee and himself were totally unfounded. The best answer to the criticism which had been made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was the report of a special Committee appointed to test the truth of the statement he made on the question when the matter was last discussed. The deputation was appointed by the Labour Representation Committee, and they went to the Washburn colony to investigate the matter on the spot. That deputation reported that the food was substantial and good, that the general accommodation was clean and good, and the work was neither difficult nor laborious. There was no evidence at all of bad treatment. He wished the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil would give the House instances to justify his supposition that the Local Government Board had refused to allow men to be trained. The hon. Member for North West Ham knew the facts, because he
  1874
  had visited the labour colony in which he was interested, and he wished other hon. Members who criticised the Local Government Board would first go and see the labour colonies they referred to. Consistently with his point of view, which he thought events would more than justify, he had done, as the hon. Member for North West Ham knew, for the inhabitants of the labour colonies everything the distress committees had asked him to do. He had been fair and even generous in the distribution of public money. He had helped the labour colony at Ockenden to carry out every one of the original intentions of its founders, and the original scheme had not been interfered with in any way. The hon. Member would probably ask, What about Hollesley Bay? The answer could best be given in figures. He might remind the House by the way that it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, and the Government of which he was a Member, who were the authors of the Hollesley Bay scheme. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil must not forget that. How could the hon. Member say that it was the Local Government Board and its unsympathetic officials who were responsible for establishing Hollesley Bay? How could it be said that they had restricted it in any way? There were 315 men there at the present moment, a larger number than there had ever been. They were doing their work under more favourable conditions than had prevailed there during the last two or three years, and the fact that £27,000 was voted last year for the maintenance of the colony and that there were now 315 men on it was a complete refutation of the suggestions that the work there had been interfered with or impaired. Perhaps the hon. Member referred to one restriction which he had imposed. He would not have been worthy of his office if he had not imposed it. An attempt was made to divert this interesting experiment from its original and proper purpose as defined by his predecessor and to convert it into too much of a training centre for skilled horticulturists and professional market gardeners. He refused to allow that, because a disproportionate amount of money would have been required for the purpose. They could not afford to spend money on that experiment at a colony which was established for other objects.

  1875
  He refused to allow a small section of the committee to divert the colony from its original purpose, but he had kept the colony well supplied with funds. He believed the colony would go on much better if it had not false friends who did not go down to see it and did not make themselves acquainted with the facts by visits on the spot. With regard to Newport, he had gone into that case, and found that the amount of distress was not exceptional, and that in the immediate neighbourhood there was work on which men would be much better employed than on relief works. He preferred that Newport men should go into Wales rather than that public money should be spent on relief works, and that they should be anchored to those relief works, and so prevented from finding local work which he knew was beginning to be taken by men from Lancashire and other parts of the country. The question of Scotland had been raised. He was not directly responsible for the administration of the Act in Scotland. In conjunction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer he consented to £10,000 being allocated for the purposes of the Act in Scotland, and he gathered that the farm colony project was being reconsidered by the Secretary for Scotland. Papers on the subject were now in the Scottish Office, and they were receiving consideration. The next point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr was that the Government had not kept their promise to amend the Act. He told the House fifteen months ago, and again eight months ago, that pending the Report of the Poor Law Commission, whose business it was to see whether the Act should be renewed or not, the Government thought that the best thing to be done, especially as they had had no experience of the Act, was to provide the money and the means by which the Act might be carried along during its experimental period and while the subject was under the consideration of the Poor Law Commission. They therefore decided not to amend the Act, but to provide £200,000 with which to work the Act; and, so far, of that amount £106,000 had been disbursed. There was no single distress committee who had submitted to him a scheme of work, but had had as much money as was necessary for the purposes of that scheme.
  1876
  All of them had at this moment as mall balance in hand, and nearly all had refused to use their rating power to the extent they ought to have done, in order to bring local activities into relationship with Imperial help. He could only say that, so far as the amendment of the Act was concerned, it was infinitely better that they should do as they did than that they should amend the Act. As to the two or three questions which were now put to the men and which were thought to be irritating, the simple answer was that the questions were drafted on the basis of those of the Battersea Labour Bureau and the West Ham Labour Bureau. At both those places labouring men were responsible for the drafting of the questions, and the only sense in which they did not resemble the questions of the Local Government Board was that those authorised by the Board were smaller in number. He got a copy of the West Ham questions sent to him fifteen months ago, and his Department cut out some of them, so that they might not be vexatious or irritating at all. The hon. Member for West Ham said that nothing was being done. Was it fair to say that when only last week there were from 14,000 to 16,000 men at work on relief works or farm colonies by means of this fund? Was it fair to say that nothing was being done in London when this week nearly 8,000 men were being employed in the London district on work secured to them by this fund or out of the rates? It was not fair. There were 2,500 men at work in the London parks, and the London district had 8,000 men at work at this moment. Of the £85,000 voted for England and Wales out of this fund, London and district had had £71,000, and of that amount West Ham had had £25,000. Those figures did not sustain the view that the district committees had not been supported. The hon. Member for North-East Manchester wanted to know what the Local Government Board were doing with regard to the farm colony project put forward by the Manchester Distress Committee. On 12th October that committee received a circular from him saying that if they wished to apply for money they were entitled to do so. He received evidence of the fact that there were no local subscriptions and that no scheme was submitted, and it was not until 25th

  1877
  February—four and a quarter months after the circular was sent saying there was money for them if they wished it—that a scheme was submitted. The scheme submitted by the committee of that big city was not one that would give 1,000 or 1,500 men work in or near the city, but one for the employment of twelve men at Chat Moss, seventeen miles from Manchester. He put it to the House fairly and squarely, ought he to have adopted such a scheme from a city like Manchester? They made no efforts to secure subscriptions, and they would not give him plans or specifications for the employment of their local unemployed. The scheme which they submitted four months after receiving the circular was one which under the circumstances would have meant a deficit of anything from £300 to £600 in the first year. That was his answer to the hon. Member for North East Manchester. The hon. Member did him the honour of quoting some of his earlier speeches. He wished that hon. Members who quoted him would take the trouble to bring the speeches with them, and especially when they quoted him in regard to labour colonies. [An Hon. Member: We shall be glad to oblige you.] If the hon. Member lived as long as he had done, he would find it not only politic, but absolutely necessary, to revise some of the views he expressed in his own salad days. In fact he was convinced that outside critics were already directing against the hon. Member the same kind of criticism now that he was a responsible Member of that House. He sympathised with the hon. Member in his trouble, and assured him that if he wanted useful support he would be delighted to render to him that help which one day, he was sure, he would need. The hon. Member for North East Manchester had said that his utterances to-day on this and kindred subjects were in marked contrast to what he had said twenty years ago. This was what he said twenty years ago, and he invited the attention of the hon. Gentleman to it, for that hon. Gentleman owed him some reparation, and probably an apology for his remarks—
  "The labour colony as a remedy for the unemployed is, I maintain, foredoomed to failure, and is nothing but the revival in another form of the hated casual ward with all its physical and moral iniquities. [Labour cries of 'No,
  1878
  no. 'If municipalisation of agriculture is intended, that is something I can understand; but that for years is not likely to prove a remedy for the workless. Rather will it come after easier things have been undertaken and accomplished, the abolition of over-work, the reduction of the hours of labour, and the reorganisation of labour in every trade, that is now going on—too slowly, I admit—in the right direction by trade union, municipal, and Parliamentary action. [Renewed Labour cries of 'No, no.']."
  Well, that was his view; and he was in the position of a critic now. Some hon. Members opposite had brushed aside those views for new-fangled ideas in regard to labour colonies. And then he went on to say—
  "Should the municipalisation of agriculture be undertaken on Socialist lines, its initial stage must be conducted, not by the unskilled unemployed, plus an in-and-out army of loafers, casuals, and wastrels, but by the best of labour attracted by those better conditions which would accompany such an undertaking started by people with brains, along the lines followed by the London County Council in doing its own work."
  He commended that to the attention of the hon. Member for North Salford. What he had said he had said. What he had pressed twenty years ago, he had repeated ad nauseam since. He made this prediction, that when nine-tenths of the schemes which the hon. Member for Merthyr was pressing upon too credulous workmen had proved to be costly, wasteful, dangerous, morally mischievous, and economically unsound, then the hon. Member would want him to help him out of the difficulty in which he would unquestionably be placed, and as his life had been spent in helping lame dogs over stiles he would be happy to do it. The hon. Member for North West Ham—and here they were getting at the heart of the problem—had said that more efficiency was needed in the administration of the unemployed funds; but it was not more efficiency on the part of the Local Government Board, but on the part of the local distress committees themselves. As the hon. Member perfectly truly said, the distress committees had shewn in this matter the greatest incompetence. Few of them had done their work well, not even the Central Unemployed Body, of which the hon. Member for Merthyr was for some time a member. Why did not the hon. Member when he was a member of that body direct their footsteps in a proper path? And if the hon. Member tried and failed,

  1879
  why should he blame him now? He believed that greater efficiency was needed on the distress committees, and he agreed with the hon. Member for North West Ham that more elasticity was required in their procedure; but he could assure the House that there had been no lack of efficiency on the part of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for North West Ham had said he would like to see emigration tried instead of farm colonies; but there had been a lot of adverse opinion expressed by Labour men in regard to that. There were, however, certain districts where the only remedy was emigration. West Ham, for instance, had a surplus of casual labourers, attracted there by the docks, but the more they kept pumping money from the rest of England into West Ham, the more they would accentuate the local problem there by attracting men from all over the country. The hon Member for Merthyr had no answer to that except emigration.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Oh yes.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: But when I gave £10,000 for emigration, I was condemned.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: My answer is, migrate to Essex, not emigrate to Canada.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that his answer to that was that if such migration could be done under the Small Holdings Bill that was promised this session, no one would welcome it more than he would. But to attempt to migrate the type of men that they had in West Ham to Essex this year was to try to do the impossible. There was no better authority than the hon. Member for South West Ham on that point. That hon. Gentleman was asked in Committee—
  "But you do not believe in taking persons unaccustomed to agricultural work and finding it profitable or advantageous to put them to that work?"
  And the answer was—
  "No, I think it is useless, and I do not think it is a sound policy at all."
  MR. THORNEsaid that there were any number of men in West Ham who had been used to agricultural work.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, but when they sent those men to Hollesley Bay or other farm colonies, the attraction of home was so great that when they had been there two, three, or four months, they returned to West Ham. But if the same men were sent out to a place like Canada, which was 3,000 miles away, and where a return was made difficult and almost impossible, they cut themselves morally and physically and industrially away from their environment, and put themselves on a new plane of life, as thousands of them had done. He would be only to pleased to assist any scheme which would enable that type of man to get on his feet again in England; but of all the money he had granted to West Ham none would do so much good for the people there as the £5,000 given to the West Ham Committee for emigration. Hon. Members who criticised his Department wanted him to undertake a large national scheme of relief works for which a million of money would be voted by Parliament each year. He positively refused to adopt any such suggestion. He would rather resign his portfolio than do so.
  MR. THORNE: Has any hon. Member advocated that a million should be granted for such a purpose?
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that if the hon. Member would refer to certain Labour papers he would see that a million had been suggested over and over again; and perhaps if he read those papers less regularly it would be better for his mental health. To grant a million of money for farm colonies would, he believed, be a financial blunder, and he would not undertake to defend it. At the same time he was prepared to give all the time that a man reasonably could do to endeavour to solve the problem of helping the distress committees. As for labour colonies for the genuine, honest unemployed, they did not want them. What might possibly emerge was a system of industrial training homes for the unemployable, and vagrant colonies for those who would not work; but when farm colonies for the unemployed were mentioned he could only say that nine-tenths of the criticism which had been levelled against him should have been directed against the local distress

  1881
  committees. He asserted that no distress committee had been refused money who had submitted to him a practical scheme of work. Nearly all such committees had balances in hand, and during the summer time he would lay hold of the question, and see if they could not do something even better than they had already done. He must say, however, that, but for the rigour and discipline and the wise restrictions that he had imposed upon these distress committees, the whole machinery of the Act would have broken down. That it had not broken down was not due to hon. Members who criticised him, but rather to the Minister who had done his best to make that experiment as great a success as events, he hoped, would prove it to be.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had opened up not only the main question raised by hon. Members below the gangway, but also an immense number of other questions, which it was quite impossible to discuss in the time remaining to the House. He hoped, therefore, the Government would arrange that the Vote for the Local Government Board should be put down on an early date after Easter, in order that they might have an opportunity of discussing these questions.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. George Whiteley,): intimated that whatever supply was desired by the Chief Opposition Whip would be put down.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was satisfied with that assurance. The right hon. Gentleman had swept away the charges which had been levelled against him from below the gangway, and he was not going to step into the interesting conflict between him and his friends. He agreed largely with the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not wonder that any one who sat in the last Parliament and was interested in the administration of this Act should have attacked him and his Government for the part they had taken, because he remembered that when the late Government endeavoured to set up the machinery which they believed to be essential if they were to deal properly with the un-
  1882
  employed question, their efforts were met with contempt and scorn by every Member of the present Government who spoke in those debates. The measure was described as ridiculous, absolutely worthless, and only what might have been expected from such a Government. Now, in the second year of its existence, they had the President of the Local Government Board spending a considerable amount of time in defending the scheme, in pleading that he should not be called on to amend it, and in resting himself very largely on the work that had been done under that scheme, and which could not have been done without it.
  *MR. JOHN BURNS: No, no. You provided no money.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was true that no money was provided out of the Imperial Exchequer, but, if it was true that the whole of the work that had been done had been covered by the sum of £200,000, it was equally true that it could not have been done without the machinery established by the late Government. He thought there was a good deal to be said with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the Hollesley Bay scheme. It was a great experiment, but he was sure that it was one of the directions in which they must look if they were going to deal with one class of the unemployed that demanded, almost, some assistance. They were more likely in market gardening, or some occupation of that kind, rather than in any general kind of land cultivation, to find a method not merely of providing work for the moment, to which he did not attach so much importance, but of providing that sort of work which would leave a man at the end of it better able to make a living for himself.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSrose to continue the debate, but,
  MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, this day, do adjourn until Monday the 8th April.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. WHITELEY MR. WHITELEY moved, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Whiteley).
  MR. BOWLES: pointed out that he had a Resolution of some importance on the Paper for a quarter past eight o'clock, and, if the Motion were persisted in, it would deprive him of the opportunity of moving it.
  MR. WHITELEYsaid that, if the hon. Gentleman particularly wished to bring on his Motion, he would withdraw his, but he thought it was the desire of the House that they should separate as early as possible.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: left the Chair at twelve minutes past Eight o'clock, there being no other Government business before the House, and the sitting was suspended till a quarter past Eight.

  OBSTRUCTIVE MOTIONS AND BILLS.
  MR. BOWLES: in moving, "That to put a Motion on the Order Paper of this House, or to introduce a Bill, so as to prevent discussion in this House, of Motions for which precedence has been obtained in the ballot or of definite matters of urgent public importance, is hurtful to the usefulness of this House and an infringement of the rights of its Members," said that he brought the matter forward with some diffidence because he was a comparatively new Member, and the rules and orders of the House could only be approached by even the oldest Members with the greatest possible deference and respect. His point, however, was a clear and simple one, and one for which no very deep or abstruse knowledge was required. He believed the object he had in view was one that commended itself to a large majority of the House. If ever a Motion of the kind was justified at any time, that time was
  1884
  surely now. He was abundantly justified, not only by that fact itself, but by what had taken place during the last few days. His Motion was directed against all Bills and Motions which were put down upon the Order Paper with the object of preventing the House of Commons from discussing either matters for which precedence had been obtained in the Ballot or definite questions of urgent public importance. He himself recently discovered a matter which he certainly considered to be of considerable public importance. He put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter, and received an Answer which was very full, and so far as it went satisfactory, but containing admissions which, to him at all events, seemed to raise a definite matter of urgent public importance. The decision as to whether that was so or not of course did not rest with him, but with Mr. Speaker. But it seemed to him that that was exactly the kind of thing for which the rule for raising a discussion on a Motion for the adjournment of the House was instituted, and one as to which the House of Commons, if it was to be a really vigilant force in these matters, ought to have had an opportunity of discussing at once on such a Motion. His complaint was that an hon. Member who took perhaps not the faintest interest in a particular matter, who desired only that a discussion should not take place, should, by putting a Motion on the Order Paper, which he had no desire to move, and which he did not intend to move, be able to prevent that matter being discussed. Such a practice, in his opinion, was an abuse of the Rules of Parliament and an interference with the rights of every Member of the House. So much for Motions. But the case with regard to Bills was infinitely stronger. The House would remember the considered ruling given by Mr. Speaker on the previous Monday in the case of the hon. Member for Westmoreland. That point had never arisen before, and on that occasion it was laid down by Mr. Speaker that under the new Rules of Procedure introduced in the last Parliament there was hidden, unseen until last Monday, the enormously important fact that it was possible for any Member of the House, by assuming to introduce a purely fictitious Bill—a Bill that did not exist and was never

  1885
  intended to exist—by writing three lines on a piece of paper and handing it to the clerk at the Table, to prevent the House from even contemplating, still less discussing, definite matters of urgent public importance which he desired should not be discussed. Let the House take the case immediately before them. On the 13th of March the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division drew the first place in the Ballot for that evening and the hon. Member for Melton drew the second place. If the ballot was not a mere useless piece of absurdity, a mere empty shadow and form, those two hon. Members had the first and second claim on the attention of the House. But two hon. Members had introduced Bills, in this case substantial Bills dealing with the subjects of the Motions put down by those hon. Members, and in consequence those hon. Gentlemen who had drawn the first and second places respectively had been deprived of the opportunities which they had obtained in the ballot, whilst he himself was now addressing the House on a Motion which had never been balloted for and was not even contemplated before the ruling given by Mr. Speaker on the previous Monday, and which was only put upon the Paper last night at a moment's notice. He submitted that such procedure as that rendered the House and its procedure mere empty and ridiculous forms, and he had no hesitation in suggesting that the House should agree to the Motion he would move. He would watch with interest the attitude of the Government upon the matter, because he recognised that the practice was not a new one. Motions had been put down in former Parliaments to block discussions. What he desired to emphasise was that blocking Motions under the old régime were very different from those of the present, in view of the ruling of Mr. Speaker. He wished the House and the Government to realise that it was in his power to put down a Bill to block any discussion. If he himself, for instance, brought in a Bill for the repeal of the sugar duties, the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he came to discuss his Budget would be a very difficult one. The position, owing to Mr. Speaker's ruling, was entirely different from what it was in the past, and the House by refusing this Motion, and refusing thereby to free itself from these
  1886
  new shackles which had been placed upon its procedure, would make the work of the Government and the House one of extreme difficulty and complication. He moved.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: in seconding the Motion, said that it seemed to be the irony of fate that this Motion should have been moved by anew Member above the gangway. He remembered so well the difficulty the House was placed in in the time of the late Parliament by blocking Motions being placed upon the Paper. In the last session or two of the late Parliament it was absolutely impossible to discuss several most important questions because, as it was suggested, by arrangement with the then Government, notices of Motion had been put down to block discussion. Now one of the younger Members of the official opposition found that somebody else had learned the old practice and what was more important, had extended it. In those days the practice was adopted to prevent discussions which might be inconvenient to the Government, but recently it had been adopted to the detriment of the privileges of the private Member. If there was any further encroachment on private Members' rights they would be reduced to the level of voting machines. He sincerely hoped that the Government would give sympathetic consideration to the Motion of the hon. Member for Norwood. He had himself put a question on the Paper to the Prime Minister on the subject which he would ask the first day after the recess. What he suggested was that the Government, while they were considering procedure, should make themselves responsible for an amendment of the Standing Order which would make these encroachments on private Members' rights absolutely impossible. On the Labour Benches they naturally felt this matter very much. They availed themselves of the ballot and took every opportunity they could to raise questions in which they as a Party were peculiarly interested. He was pleased that they had had a bit of luck in the ballot; and they had tabled Motions which might in some quarters be regarded as inconvenient, but which it was their duty to submit. It might be that somebody would get the tip. He

  1887
  did not think that the Patronage Secretary would be guilty—he had admitted yesterday that he had been guilty of jesting—of trying to rob hon. Members on those benches of an opportunity to discuss one of those inconvenient Motions. But at any rate he was not prepared to go so far as to trust him or anybody else who occupied that position. He would rather have it in the Standing Order that such a thing could not be done. Therefore he hoped sincerely that the spokesman on behalf of the Government would recognise the fairness of the Motion and the justice of the claim advanced in the interests of private Members, and see their way to accept it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That to put a Motion on the Order Paper of this House, or to introduce a Bill, so as to prevent discussion in this House of Motions for which procedence has been obtained in the ballot, or of definite matters of urgent public importance, is hurtful to the usefulness of this House and an infringement of the rights of its Members."—(Mr. Bowles.)
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he had not changed his view on this subject since he had changed his seat from the opposite side of the House. It was one of the great grievances under which at any rate they imagined they suffered in the late Parliament, that there was this almost perpetual blocking out from free discussion of almost every subject of the greatest urgency. He could not help feeling that there was great abuse in the practice, and he was in hearty sympathy with the object of the hon. Member opposite. But he was bound to say that since this new Parliament had assembled, the old system, subject as it was to very great abuse, had been supplemented by a practice which was still more objectionable, and of which, as the hon. Gentleman had very properly remarked, they had illustrations only last week. He saw the noble Lord opposite, and he was not in the least surprised that he should have followed the example which had been set, and shown that two could play at the game, and that everybody suffered from it. Whether they looked at the practice in the more restricted form, as seen in the late Parliament, or the more amplified and dangerous form as seen under
  1888
  the new rules, he thought that in the interests of free discussion and the dignity of the House of Commons it was high time that they got rid of the evil which had been complained of. It was not very easy to say what form precisely the remedy should take, because it was quite obvious that so long as a Member could get up in the afternoon and give notice to move the adjournment of the House, and occupy hours of a sitting, that was a practice which was quite as bad and quite as hostile to the best interests of the House as the one which they were now condemning. Whatever remedy they might devise they must take care not to introduce another practubject to that qualification, he thought that in a matter of this kind whatever was proposed should be by general consent of both sides of the House, and that it should not be a matter of controversial discussion between the two sides, or between the various sections of the House. With that qualification, he was very glad on behalf of the Government to assent to the Motion, and he hoped that it would be carried unanimously.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that after the most excellent speech of his right hon. friend he had only one word to add, and it was to express the hope that hon. Members would observe the practice which had hitherto prevailed with regard to Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and indeed prevailed up to that moment. It had been the custom for even Members who were opposed to a particular Motion to take their Bill off in order to permit of the discussion taking place. He had never known of an instance in which there had been a failure to take the Bill off temporarily in order to allow of a Motion coming on for discussion. Pending any action by the Government, he hoped that Members on each side of the House would continue that practice and prevent the expedient by which a single Member was enabled to reverse its operation. The matter had become more acute since the adoption of the new method of bringing in Bills without any need to express an opinion upon them. New Members who came in had every right to be heard in the House by raising questions in which they were interested;

  1889
  and the Labour Party and the Irish Party, who were in the minority, had a claim on the good feeling of the House to prevent their Motions from being blocked by the action of a single Member. Therefore it was that he addressed this one word of appeal to his colleagues in the House to co-operate in arriving at a uniform understanding.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he did not rise in any way to oppose the Motion; he would rather like to see its scope extended so as to take in Motions for Adjournment. He had a poignant memory of the last Parliament, when, after years of waiting, he won a fortunate position in the ballot. When his Motion came on, the Adjournment of the House was moved by an hon. Member below the gangway on a purely frivolous question, as it turned out, and thus the discussion for which he had waited for years was prevented. If the Government could see their way to deal with the whole question, and also to protect private Members' rights, as affected by Motions for Adjournment, he thought they would do a real service.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had rightly interpreted his motive. He was very sorry to stand in the way of the hon. Member for Bolton, but he had pointed a moral if he had not adorned a tale. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that they should revert to the old practice of an honourable understanding, but he thought they must put in this caveat: the Government, he understood, were going to take action in the matter, and the action must be by way of standing order or sessional order; he did not think that anything short of that would do. If they proceeded promptly, well and good; if they did not, he for one could not regard himself as bound by any honourable understanding. He regarded this as a question of vital importance to be dealt with at once. As to Motions for adjournment in respect of questions of urgent public importance, he regarded that practice as the one hold which the House had on the Government under present conditions. It was the one means by which they could bring the Government to book promptly. As long
  1890
  as they kept within reasonable limits it was really one of the privileges which the House had, and which should not be parted with. He agreed that they did not want to go back to the old condition of things when there were Motions almost every day on more or less frivolous grounds. Under the ruling of Mr. Speaker, however, both this and last session, there was no fear of that happening. Mr. Speaker had ruled constantly that the matter of urgent public importance must be a matter of broad policy in the ordinary sense of the term, and not merely in a Parliamentary sense, and, therefore, as long as they were confined to that, he thought that it was a privilege they ought not to lose. He felt strongly that the academic Motions which were discussed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays did not achieve anything except to show how hon. Members voted on particular questions. Let the House take such a Motion as that which had been blocked that evening. Whatever view they might take of it, still it was desirable that the House should arrive at a decision upon it. They had debated a definite Bill for four or five hours, and it was very desirable that the country should know which hon. Members were in favour of woman suffrage and which were against it. He thought it a very unfortunate circumstance that, owing to the extraordinary rules of the House, the Motion could not be brought on. He only trusted that the Government would take the matter up seriously and introduce a Standing Order or a Sessional Order, because it lay entirely with them; nobody else could do it, and unless they I did it, it would not be done at all.
  *MR. MORTON: heartily supported the Resolution. It had always appeared to him to be a monstrous thing that any one hon. Member could stultify the desire of the House to discuss a particular question. The smallest and most obscure institution in the country would not allow itself to be so stultified. He quite agreed that something would have to be done to prevent unnecessary adjournments of the House. He hoped the Government in dealing with the procedure rules would provide against a repetition of what had happened this session and other sessions. All parties were agreed that some remedy should be found.
  MAJOR SEELYasked if they could not now come to the honourable understanding to which the noble Lord had referred. The noble Lord had said he would agree to any scheme the Government might produce on the subject, but he entered a caveat that he could not agree to an honourable understanding that Motions for adjournment should in any way be interfered with. Surely they might agree that they would not introduce Bills in order to block private Members' Motions for which precedence had been obtained in the ballot.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that, as far as he was concerned, if the Government produced a Standing Order to carry out what they all desired he would not oppose it; but if the production of the Standing Order was postponed to the end of the discussion on procedure they could not take out of their hands the weapon which had been given to them in order to put pressure upon the Government.
  MAJOR SEELY: thought they were all agreed that the right of private Members for Motions on Wednesdays until Whitsuntide should be respected by
  1892
  agreement on both sides of the House, whilst the question of adjournments remained undecided.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he could not enter into any such agreement unless the Government produced their Standing Order with due promptitude.
  Resolved, That to put a Motion on the Order Paper of this House, or to introduce a Bill, so as to prevent discussion in this House of Motions for which precedence has been obtained in the ballot or of definite matters of urgent public importance, is hurtful to the usefulness of this House and an infringement of the rights of its Members.—(Mr. Bowles.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes before Nine o'clock till Monday 8th April.