Commons Sitting of 2 May 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Tower Hamlets (Stepney Division), in the room of Sir William Eden Evans-Gordon (Chiltern Hundreds):—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Worthing Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Bristol Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Great Central Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
Sir LEWIS McIVER reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills;That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
Mr. SOAMES reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Two of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending certain provisions of the Birmingham Corporation Water Acts in regard to repayment of moneys borrowed for the purpose of those Acts,
1034
and for other purposes." Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords.]
Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords], read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Anniesland and Jordanhill; Breadalbane; Camelon; Glasgow; Partick; and Whiteinch; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal Sanitary Institute, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Kidderminster, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES.
  Return [presented 1st May] to be printed. [No. 136.]
  ARTERIAL DRAINAGE COMMISSION (IRELAND.)
  Copy presented, of Appendix to the Report of the Viceregal Commission on Arterial Drainage in Ireland, with Minutes of Proceedings, Evidence, and Index [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the City of Manchester and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within a certain part of the City [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3770 to 3772 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 12, 1907.)
  Copy presented, of Exchange of Notes between the United Kingdom and Germany, respecting the Estates of Deceased Seamen, 16th February, 21st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (CLOSING ORDERS.)
  Address for "Return showing separately for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1907, the number of Closing Orders made by local authorities under the Shop Hours Act, 1904, and submitted to the central authority for confirmation; the number of such Orders confirmed, (a) with amendments, and (b) without amendments; and the number of such Orders subsequently revoked upon application of the local authority."—(Mr. Crooks.)
  EAST INDIA FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  Address for "Return of the Indian Financial Statement for 1907–8 and of the Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the Governor-General thereon."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND.)
  Return ordered, "showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907, the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, to the Revenue collected by Imperial officers; the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish Services met out of such Revenue, and the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively, which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 278, of Session 1906).—(Mr. John O'Connor.)
  HARBOUR, &c, BILLS (BURNHAM (SOMERSET) PIER BILL.)
  Copy ordered, "of the Report of the Board of Trade on the Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Portsmouth Dockyard Labourers' Pay.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the contractors working for the Admiralty in Portsmouth I Dockyard pay their labourers at the rate of about 4½d. per hour, and that such employment is precarious; that the standard rate of wages for similar work in the neighbourhood is 6d. per hour; and whether he will take steps to arrange that the standard rate of wages shall be paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I have made inquiries, and find that none of the firms to whom I understand my hon. friend alludes have carried out any work in Portsmouth Dockyard since the beginning of the year.

  Keyham and Devonport Bricklayers' Pay.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the bricklayers employed under the Director of Works Department at Keyham and Devonport Dockyards at 31s. 6d. per week are doing similar work

  1037
  to those employed at Portsmouth and Chatham at 34s,; and, if so, will he recommend an advance of wages for such men as are underpaid.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Works Department rates are governed by the rate of wages current in the district. These rates are higher at Chatham and Portsmouth than at Devonport.

  Rockchapel Mails.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the postal authorities are aware that the delivery of the mails on the 4th, 5th, and 6th, at Rockchapel, county Cork, was nearly one hour late on each day; that correspondents in this district were unable to answer letters received on the 6th until the 9th owing to the irregular delivery and to the fact that there is no Sunday mail; whether steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these irregularities; and whether, in view of the many complaints of the residents respecting unsatisfactory postal service, the postal authorities will now consider the advisability of despatching the mails to Rockchapel via Newmarket, a railway station town about nine miles distant, instead of via Abbeyfeale, county Limerick, and Brosna, county Kerry, an extra mileage of forty to fifty, as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry on the subject and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Post Office Annuitants.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Postmaster General whether Post Office annuitants who require to draw on their capital are permitted to arrange with the Post Office to compound ' for their annuity according to the common practice of other annuity offices, and what instructions are given to local postmasters with a view to such arrangements.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The Acts which provide for the payment of Government, annuities through the Post Office do not provide any systematic
  1038
  arrangement for the compounding of annuities which are in. course of payment. The Postmaster General, with the consent of the National Debt Commissioners, may cancel a contract for the purchase of an annuity. In the case of a deferred annuity purchased under the money returnable system, the purchase-money would be returned, without interest, if application were made to the Controller of the Savings Bank at any time before the annuity came into course of payment.

  Crouch End Telephone Exchange.
  CAPTAIN BALFOUR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can give any probable date for the opening of the post office telephone exchange at Crouch End.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The exchange building will be completed at the end of the present month and the installation of the switch board and exchange plant will be carried out as soon as possible. It is hoped that the exchange will be opened in November. Five call offices have been opened in the district and others will be opened shortly.

  Board of Trade and the Railway Companies.
  MR. HOOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the arrangements referred to in the published correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies' Association are recorded in any minutes relating to the conferences of goods managers at their clearing house or elsewhere, and, if so, whether he will obtain a copy for the information of the House; and if he will ascertain if such arrangements affect the question of railway rates directly or indirectly, apart from the question of rebates, and whether foreign merchandise, imported from the Continent, is specially exempted from the arrangements referred to in the published correspondence.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade are in correspondence with the railway companies in this matter, and my right hon. friend will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  London Motor Omnibuses.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that drivers of motor omnibuses in London frequently, without reasonable cause, refuse to stop or even slacken speed for intending passengers; and whether he will cause the police to communicate with the owners to ensure that the convenience of the public may be properly considered in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Complaints of this nature have been made to the Commissioner of Police, and he has already called the attention of the omnibus companies to the inconvenience caused to the public. I believe that improvement has resulted.

  Kilindini Harbour, East Africa.
  SIR CLEMENT HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made towards the improvement of the harbour facilities at Kilindini, in the East Africa Protectorate.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has received no special official Report as to the progress which has been made; but it is believed that the work is proceeding satisfactorily.

  Game Protection in East Africa and Uganda.
  SIR CLEMENT HILL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, what sums have been taken, in the Estimates of the current year, towards the protection of game animals in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates, respectively; what staff will be apportioned to either protectorate, and how soon the members will be appointed; and where it is proposed that the various officers should be stationed.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill) A sum of £2,370 for the preservation of game has been provided in the Estimates of the East Africa Protectorate for the current year. The rangers, whose salaries are to be paid from this sum, will all be; stationed in the East Africa Protectorate,
  1040
  and they will be appointed as soon as possible. I am unable to say where they will be stationed. With regard to the Uganda Protectorate no provision has been made in the Estimates for the current year for the preservation of game, and I would refer the hon. Member to the despatch from the late Commissioner of the 1st of November, 1905, which is printed in the Parliamentary Paper [Cd. 3189]. In that despatch Colonel Hayes-Sadler said that it would not be possible to police the Uganda reserves without incurring expense, which, under the circumstances, he did not consider justified, the sanctity of the reserves being fully respected as it is.

  Irish Treasury Savings.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state how much money did the Treasury save out of the Irish Votes that were not expended since 1903; whether he can state the amounts saved on the different Votes, and to what purpose the money so saved has been applied.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The sums surrendered on the annual Votes of Parliament are shown each year in the Appropriation Accounts. The inquiry as to the application of moneys so saved appears to be based on a misapprehension. A saving on a Vote of Parliament does not necessarily mean that any money is made available for expenditure on other purposes; it only means that the expenditure out of that particular Vote has been less than it was estimated to be. In so far as, owing to savings on the Votes generally and to other causes, the Exchequer Revenue exceeds the Exchequer Issues for the year, the balance is applied under statute to the reduction of Debt as Old Sinking Fund.

  Land Act Guarantee Fund.
  MR. GINNELL:To ask the Secretary of the Treasury, if he will set out in quarterly periods, from the 1st November, 1903, to the present time, the sums drawn under the Land Act of 1903 from the guarantee fund for the whole of Ireland, in order to show the growth of these losses.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The following statement shows the sums drawn from and repaid to the guarantee

  Quarter ended.

  Arrears of Annuities and deficiency of Income.

  Drawn for excess stock.

  Total. Drawn (+), Repaid (-).

  Drawn.

  Repaid.

  Net amount drawn (+) or repaid (-).

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  31st December, 1903

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31st March, 1904

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30th June, 1904

  —

  —

  —

  9,910

  + 9,910

  30th September, 1904

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31st December, 1904

  —

  —

  —

  9,908

  + 9,908

  31st March, 1905

  787

  262

  + 525

  —

  + 525

  30th June, 1905

  —

  190

  - 190

  19,350

  + 19,160

  30th September, 1905

  10,395

  151

  + 10,244

  —

  + 10,244

  31st December, 1905

  —

  4,400

  - 4,400

  19,349

  + 14,949

  31st March, 1906

  10,523

  11,361

  - 838

  —

  838

  30th June, 1906

  —

  3,859

  - 3,859

  22,661

  + 18,802

  30th September, 1906

  7,478

  970

  + 6,508

  —

  + 6,508

  31st December, 1906

  10,969

  4,560

  + 6,409

  35,130

  + 41,539

  31st March, 1907

  59,328

  5,440

  + 53,888

  —

  + 53,888

  99,480

  31,193

  + 68,287

  116,308

  +184,595

  The above table includes the amountsdrawn from the development grant in respect of excess stock.

  The £68,287 drawn from Death Duty, etc., grants is less than the amount given in answer to the hon. Member on 22nd † ultimo by £2,709, the arrears repaid to the guaranteed fund after 31st January, 1907.

  Land Act Treasury Rules.
  MR. GINNELL:To ask the Secretary to the Treasury will the amendments
  † See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1374–5.
  fund under the Irish Land Act, 1903, for each quarter from 1st November, 1903:—
  which he proposes to make in the Treasury Rules under the Land Act of 1903 restore inspection for value in every case, segregate the value of the tenant-right or occupation interest and improvements, and restrict the price to the value of the raw material, which is the only thing that belongs to the landlord;or will they in any way secure either the purchasers or the ratepayers against the losses consequent upon the present system of paying money irrespective of value.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative.

  Land Act Stock.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORTo ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amount of stock issued up to the 31st March last, for the purposes of the Irish Land Act, 1903; the total cost of its flotation; the annual liability of the Irish Development Grant Fund in respect of the same; and the present capital liability of that fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The total amount of Guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock issued to 31st March, l907, has been—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For the purposes of advances

  19,300,000

  0

  0

  For the purpose of the Land Purchase Aid Fund

  1,901,444

  8

  9

  £21,201,444

  8

  9

  The total amount of the expenses incurred in the issue of the above stock has been £42,616 14s. 9d.The annual liability of the Ireland Development Grant is limited to an annuity of 3¼ per cent, on the excess stock issued in respect of advances. This annuity at present amounts to £70,253. The present capital liability to be made good from the Ireland Development Grant amounts to £2,143,031.

  Irish Development Grant and Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. MOONEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in detail how the sum of £102,000 paid from the Irish Development Grant to the income account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund has been expended.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman) The sum of £102,000 has been used in making good the deficiencies on the income account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund up to 31st March, 1906. These deficiencies have been due to—

  £

  Unearned dividend on issues of stock

  63,200

  Advance dividend

  19,900

  Unproductive balances, etc.

  18,900

  Scottish Small Holdings.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the quantity of land, in statute acres, acquired by the Congested Districts Board for Scotland and by the Crofters Commission from the formation of those bodies down to the date of their last Reports; the number of holdings enlarged, improved, or enhanced, and the number of new holdings formed there from; and the quantity of this land, if any, remaining undistributed at the date mentioned; also similar information, so far as available, regarding land not acquired by those bodies but distributed with their financial or other help or co-operation.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Crofters Commission have no power under the Act to purchase or otherwise acquire land or to form now holdings, but they are authorised, under Sections 11,12, and 13, to assign land on application made in enlargement of existing crofters' holdings. In carrying out these provisions, they have assigned53,187 acres, in enlargement of 1,352 crofters' holdings from the passing of the Act in 1886 to 31st December, 1900. The quantity of land in statute acres purchased by the Congested Districts Board is 80,476 acres, of which a little over 20,000 acres of farm land are undistributed at this date. The number of holdings enlarged, improved, or enhanced on these properties up to this date is 222. The number of new holdings formed there from up to this date is eighty-eight. On lands which still belong to other proprietors 360 new holdings have been formed with the help of the Board, and enlargements have, with their help, been given to 237 tenants of these proprietors. The quantity of land involved in the formation of these new holdings and enlargements is about 37,000 acres.

  Horse Breeding in Scotland.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS:To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board are still selecting stallions for service in districts under their control which have-not undergone a veterinary inspection, and that in consequence not infrequently horses are employed which are unsuitable and unfit, even that such have been sometimes

  1045
  found travelling the country actually lame; what steps does he suggest to prevent such occurrences; and whether he will issue instructions that every horse shall be subjected to veterinary examination before final approval.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that, of the five stallions selected for service on the suggestion of people locally interested, one has been certified by a veterinary surgeon, and certificates will be obtained for the others before final approval.

  Cambridge Cottage, Kew.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he would say for what purpose the Department intend the house known as Cambridge Cottage, Kew, after the furnishing of the same is completed.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The eastern and central sections of the buildings will be used for museum purposes, and the remaining portion will, be converted into four houses for members of the staff of the gardens.

  Kew Gardens Guides.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the; right to sell the Kew Handlist guides, postcards, etc., has been given to a private firm; and, if so, would he state the reason for such transference, and the price paid for the privilege by the said firm.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The right to sell guide books, post cards, etc., at Kew has been given to a private firm in order that the staff of the gardens may be relieved of a task which interfered with the performance of their proper duties, and that improved facilities may be given to visitors for the purchase of publications likely to be of interest to them. The firm in question will bear the cost of erecting a suitable store and saleroom, and pay a rent of £5 per annum for the first two years, and £10 per annum for the next three years.

  Nantwich Postmaster's Relatives.
  MR. DUNCAN SCHWANN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why the rule of the service that the relatives of postmasters cannot receive appointment at the same office has been departed from at the Nantwich post office; and, in view of the friction caused by the non-observance of the rule, he will direct that it be adhered to in this instance.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is no rule prohibiting the appointment at any particular office of a relative, male or female, of the postmaster of that office. It is usual to require male relatives to be transferred elsewhere on attaining the age of nineteen, but female relatives are not disturbed unless the relationship is found to be detrimental to the efficiency of the service.

  Robertstown Mail Service.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at the present time a mid-day mail arrives at Robertstown, county Kildare, and whether notice of discontinuance of the same has been issued; if so, what is the reason for such discontinuance; and will he withdraw the order if it be shown that the existing arrangement is a convenience to many of the inhabitants.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and on its receipt I will send the hon. Member a reply.

  Motherwell Licensing Case.
  MR. FINDLAY: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Cross Keys public house in Mother-well, the certificate for which was in the name of Alfred Ernest Howard, and to the fact that the said certificate holder had granted a trust deed for be hoof of his creditors on or about the month of November of last year, that no transfer of the said certificate to his trustees had been applied for, but that notwithstanding the business had been carried on without interruption up to this date; and whether, in these circumstances and in view of the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, he will explain why no action

  1047
  has been taken by the responsible authorities for this breach of the law.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I have directed inquiries to be made both locally and in regard to the general practice in cases such as those alluded to in the Question, and I shall be glad to answer a further Question upon the subject next week.

  Boards of Guardians and the Workmen's Compensation Rule.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to issue a circular letter to boards of guardians and other local authorities, stating the Local Government Board's views as co what liabilities the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, places on such authorities; and what classes of officers stand in the relation of workmen within the meaning of the Act to such authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board have no power to determine what class of officers stand in the relation of workmen within the meaning of the Act to local authorities; but I propose to issue a circular drawing attention to its provisions.

  Ipswich Union Labour Yard.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Local Government Board had urged the Ipswich Board of Guardians to close their outdoor labour yard; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board had suggested, or would suggest, to the Ipswich guardians any other method of providing work for the unemployed who wore destitute of means to maintain themselves and their families; and whether the men working in the labour yard had any children, the number and ages of the children, and whether He had advised, or would advise, the guardians to make any provision for such children.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The object of opening a labour yard is not to provide work for the unemployed, but to enable the guardians to set able-bodied men to work as a condition of their receiving outdoor relief. A labour yard should not be relied upon as affording a constant means of subsistence. After
  1048
  the winter was over the Local Government Board asked the Ipswich guardians to close the labour yard which they had opened in December last, and this the guardians have done. I have not before me informationas to the number and ages of any children of the persons who worked in the labour yard. If any destitute able-bodied male person now applies to the guardians for relief he must be relieved in the workhouse, with such of his family as may be resident withhim, unless in a special case the guardians depart from the requirements of the regulations on the subject and the Board assent to their doing so.

  Newark Guardians' Belief Work Pay.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Local Government Board inspector advised the Newark guardians not to pay able-bodied men who were needing employment as much as 2s. for a day's work, and said that it had been found in other unions that by giving men five days work, and by relieving them according to their necessities, there was a decrease in applications, because it was found that it was not worth their while to work for five days, say, for 7s. a week; will he say in what unions men had been offered 7s. a week or less for five days work; whether all the men were single men, or whether any of them had a wife, child, or children; and whether the Local Government Board approved of their inspector's statement.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My hon. friend only gave notice of his Question yesterday, and hence I have not been able to communicate with the inspector with regard to the matter referred to in it, or to ascertain the precise unions to which he is stated to have alluded in his interview with the Newark guardians. I have, however, seen a newspaper report of the interview, and, if this account is correct, I should see no reason to disapprove of the advice which he gave. I would point out that the relief given by guardians to an able-bodied male person is not a payment for work done, but should be based upon the necessities of the man and those dependent on him. The work is intended as a condition of the relief and a test of destitution.

  Government Lunacy Grant.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he will introduce legislation extending the grant of 4s. weekly now made under the Load Government Act, 1888, in respect of each lunatic maintained in a lunatic asylum, to imbeciles and lunatics certified for treatment in workhouses.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Some extension of the grant; in the direction desired was recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, subject to certain conditions. The matter will receive consideration when the question of local taxation is dealt with by the Government; but I could not promise to introduce legislation with regard to it at the present time.

  Probate and Estate Duty Valuations.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state how the Treasuryis secured against fraud in the numerous cases in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Probate Court officials discourage the making of valuations for probate and estate duty by qualified and licensed valuers or auctioneers, and accept instead unchecked guesses or estimates made by unqualified persons who have not seen the property; have cases of abuse of this practice been brought under his notice; do professional valuers and auctioneers pay licence duties; if so, what steps are taken to protect their interests; and can he see his way, in justice to the public, to the revenue, and to those professions, to order the discontinuance of the practice complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Neither the Board of Inland Revenue nor the Probate Court, officials "discourage'' professional valuations for estate duty. They merely do not insist on such valuations in cases where the value of property can be sufficiently determined without expert professional advice. The Board are not aware of any abuse of this concession, and it does not seem to them that the fact that auctioneers and valuers have to pay licenceduty is a sufficient reason for I imposing on accountable parties an obligation to employ them for estate duty
  1050
  purposes where the subject of valuation does not require their assistance.

  Irish County Council Bank Accounts.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the name of each county council in Ireland, the name of the bank acting as treasurer, and the rate of interest allowed on credit balances on the current account of each council.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are in a position to state the names of the banks which act as treasurers to county councils, but have no information as to the special arrangements made by the counties with their treasurers in regard to overdrafts and credit balances. The Board have reason to believe that the publication of these arrangements between the banks and their customers would be objected to, and might lead to a reconsideration of them which would not be to the advantage of the counties in every case.

  Irish Law Officers' Fees.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will supply details of the sum of £7,000 stated in the Civil Service Estimates, Class 3, Vote 14, Sub-head F, to have been spent last year, so that Parliament may know how it has been spent before voting the similar sum asked for this year under the same sub-head.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the sum of £7,000 is stated to have been spent under the subhead quoted in the last financial year. That sum was provided in last year's Estimates, but the accounts for the year have not yet been passed. The amount expended will appear in the Appropriation Accounts in due course. The hon. Member will find it stated in the Estimates that the provision under Sub-head F is for—Fees to counsel, other than the Law Officers, for conducting Crown prosecutions, etc., also for representing the Attorney-General on the trial of election petitions. The bulk of the expenditure under this sub-head consists of foes to Crown counsel for conducting the ordinary prosecutions at assizes.

  Kiltyclogher Evicted Tenant.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that one of their inspectors, Mr. W. H. Todd, has informed Mr. William M'Gowan, Raheelin, Kiltyclogher, county Leitrim, that He can only be reinstated in the holding from which he was evicted by agreeing to pay an annuity equal in amount to the old rent, which he was unable to pay; and what action do the Estates Commissioners purpose taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this matter, and have ascertained that their inspector did not make the statement attributed to him. The question of the price at which M'Gowan should purchase if reinstated did not arise, as M'Gowan informed the inspector that he could not live on the holding from which he was evicted, but desired to get land elsewhere. The Commissioners have not yet dealt with their inspector's Report on the case.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Obsolete Warships.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Amiralty, whether the obsolete war vessel recently removed from Holy Loch has yet been sold; and, if so, what was the original cost of that vessel, when was she built, and what price has she now brought; whether the remaining vessels in that loch and in the Kyles of Bute are to be removed and sold; and, if so will he say when he proposes to do this.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): I assume that my hon. friend refers to the "Immortalite." As this vessel was sold on a percentage basis, her sale value cannot be definitely stated, but the proceeds will not be less than £16,000. She was launched in 1887 and cost £259,527. Two other vessels lying at Holy Loch have recently been sold, and will shortly be removed. The disposal of the remaining vessels is under consideration.

    Marine Officers.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty at what average age specialisation of marine officers will commence under the new scheme, and by whom will the former subaltern duties of marine officers be performed.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: So far as can be foreseen at present, the average age of specialisation under the scheme will be about 22½. No decision on the point mentioned in the second part of the Question will be required for some years.

    Rosyth.
    MR. C. E. PRICE:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty about what date Rosyth was first considered by the Government of the day as suitable for a naval base; what steps were taken to ascertain its suitability or otherwise; whether any Report together with the evidence taken, was made; and, if so, whether full information will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I understand that Rosyth first came under consideration early in 1902. The adoption of this site was first recommended by the Berthing Committee, and an examination of the land followed. The Berthing Committee took evidence, and their Report was presented to the House (Cd. 1649 of Session 1903). When definite proposals are laid before the House, the question of furnishing additional information will be considered.
    MR. C. E. PRICE: Will the evidence be laid with the Report?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:I will consider that when any definite proposal is made.
    MR. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether negotiations with the Marquess of Linlithgow began before his return from Australia or afterwards?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That took place under the late Government, and I cannot say.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether the definite proposals will be made during this session?
    MR.EDMUND ROBERTSON: That I cannot say.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the definite proposals made by the late Government in August, 1905, were made before we knew what the nature of the bottom of the harbour was?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot be expected to answer that Question.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study the Return as to the bottom of the sea?
    MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Rosyth was purchased from the Marquess of Linlithgow in one or two lots; when the transaction was completed, the rental derived from the land prior to purchase, the acreage and gross amount paid for it, the conditions of sale as to minerals; and whether it leaves the Government free to quarry for stone for any of the naval works without further payment.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I understand that the property at Rosyth acquired from Lord Linlithgow was purchased in one lot. The purchase of the land and foreshore was completed on the 31st July, 1903;the purchase of minerals was completed on the 18th November, 1903. The rental prior to purchase was £1,288 15s. per annum. The acreage acquired was 911½ acres of land and 236 acres of foreshore. The price paid for the land and foreshore was £100,000, and for the minerals £12,250. The Admiralty have acquired all the minerals on the property, and have full rights of quarrying. Certain adjacent property was acquired at the same time from Mr. Newton, amounting to 266 acres of land and 50 acres of foreshore, at a cost of £22,500 including all mineral rights. This property includes valuable quarries which could be used for the works.
    MR. MORTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many
    1054
    years purchase was paid for this property?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is an arithmetical question which the hon. Gentleman is quite competent to solve.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS:Were means taken to assess the value of these lands impartially, or did the Department which the right hon. Gentleman represents make the valuation themselves?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of the Question.

    Garrison Artillery Militia.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how much will be saved by the order that the Garrison Artillery Militia shall this year do their training without the usual supply of gun ammunition.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): No money has been taken in the Estimates for ammunition for the Militia Garrison Artillery practice, as sufficient surplus ammunition is available. No-saving, therefore, is effected this year. The value of gun ammunition annually^ expended by this force is about £12,000.

    Territorial Force—County Association Funds.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House if it is intended that the money paid by the Army Council to county associations for the requirements of the Territorial Force shall cover the necessary equipment and maintenance of that force, or what interpretation is to be given to the words all other money received by an association.
    MR. HALDANE: It is intended that the money paid by the Army Council to a county association, taken together with arms or other supplies in kind, shall be sufficient to cover the necessary equipment and maintenance of the Territorial Force in its area. The intention of the provision in the Bill relating to other money received by an association is

    1055
    simply to leave to the association a free hand in the disposal of any property (including money) it may receive from private sources, and not to relieve the Government from the obligation to maintain the Territorial Force in the county.

    The Indian Budget.
    MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now say on what day the Indian Budget will be taken.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol, E.): As the Secretary of State stated in reply to a Question on Tuesday, he hopes that the discussion will take place during the first week or ten days after the Whitsun holidays.

    Assam Children's Education.
    MR. HICKS BEACH:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can now state whether it has been found possible to provide additional facilities for the education of children employed on the tea-gardens in Assam and other Indian provinces.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question on the 14th March,† to which I have at present nothing to add.

    The St. Lucia Riots.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further official information in regard to the rioting at St. Lucia; what is the total number of killed and wounded; and what steps are being taken to cope with the trouble.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The following telegram was received from the Governor on the afternoon of the 30th of April, "30th April, Conditions improved, one factory working, two partly working, one idle, but feeling still acute, no firing since last report, but correct casualty returns rifle fire number of killed is four,
    † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 210.
    1056
    wounded twenty-nine, of whom two since dead, other casualties with (?) sticks and stones. No doubt that armed police by firing saved the factories and lives, checked organised massing of three large bodies of rioters and prevented far greater calamity." And on the afternoon of yesterday, the following, "1st May: factories still guarded, conditions unchanged, temper people unsatisfactory: Marines should be landed in place of Barbados police on arrival of 'Indefatigable.' "My Answer to the hon. Members for West Lanarkshire and Mid-Armagh on Monday last‡ has shown what measures have hitherto been taken to prevent further disturbances. Detachments of police were summoned from Barbados and St. Vincent, and H.M.S. "Indefatigable" was ordered to proceed to St. Lucia, and arrived last night. The Governor has stated that no further assistance is required.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether in view of recent events, the Government would take into consideration the question of greater naval protection for the West Indies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; it is being taken into consideration, and I understand some alteration is about to be made.

    Unlicensed Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal.
    MR. WALSH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether another shipment of coolies left China a few days ago with the object of work in the Transvaal mines, including about 250 for whom no licences were issued; and, if so, whether, in view of the promise made in July, 1906, of the arrest of importation before the Transvaal Assembly was established, he will inform the House by whose authority licences are still being issued and recruiting going on, and what system of supervision, if any, exists at the ports of shipment; and whether, seeing that a large number of the last shipment are unlicensed, His Majesty's Government will take steps to prevent their landing at Cape Town or their despatch to the Transvaal mines.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 528–9.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The last batch of Chinese coolies reached the Transvaal early in January, since when no further coolies have left or can leave China for South Africa.
    MR. WALSH: What was the date at which 250 unlicensed coolies were admitted? Will the correspondence on the subject be laid?
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is true that the number of coolies imported in the last shipload was increased by 259. This was due to an error, which caused great annoyance to my noble friend Lord Elgin and also, I suppose, to the authorities in South Africa. The question of the immediate repatriation of these 259 coolies who had been imported without licence was the subject of considerable correspondence between this country and South Africa; but, after careful investigation of the whole circumstances, and in view of the very large expenditure that would have been incurred by chartering a special ship to repatriate 259 coolies, the Secretary of State decided that it would not be possible to persist in the request that we had made to the Governor of the Transvaal to make a special repatriation. The telegrams which passed on the subject are, I think, ripe for publication, and will, I think, show the House the earnest effort we have made to abide in strict detail by all we have said to the House of Commons from time to time, and I will ask my noble friend whether he will not consent to their being laid before the House.
    MR. SCOTT: If these coolies had been sent back on whom would the cost have fallen?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he presumed that, as the Government had made the mistake in calculation, the cost of repatriation would fall on the Government.
    MR. SCOTT: Even if these coolies are not licensed?
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I presume that these Chinamen will not come under the Ordinance at all?
    MR. T. CORBETT: Is the whole future of Chinese labour in the
    1058
    Transvaal not to be left to the new Transvaal Government?
    MAJOR SEELYasked whether these 259 coolies would be returned with the next shipload.
    MR. CHURCHILLhoped the return by shipload would scion be beginning. The ships would be filled with Chinese returning on the expiration of their contract; whether they would include these identical coolies he could not say.
    LORD BALCARRESasked on what date these 259 coolies arrived.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It was the last shipload, at whatever date they entered.
    MR. CROOKS: Have they been allowed to start work under the conditions of the Ordinance?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid no objection had been made to the coolies proceeding to work.
    Several other hon. Members rose to put questions.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice should be given of any further Questions.

    Indians in the Transvaal.
    DR. RUTHERFORDin accordance with notice given privately, asked whether the Transvaal Registration Bill had been received by His Majesty's Government for approval; whether this Bill was a practical re-enactment of the Asiatic Ordinance passed by the late Legislative Council of the Transvaal, which was disallowed by His Majesty's Government; whether, in view of the protests of the British Indian community, His Majesty's Government would, under the powers reserved to them, advise His Majesty to withhold his sanction from the measure; and whether the Government would represent to the Government of the Transvaal the advisability of accepting the proposals of the British Indian community adopted at a mass meeting at Johannesburg on March 11th, 1907.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The Law has been received and is, except in a few minor points, identical with the previous Bill. After very careful consideration of this measure from the standpoint of Lord Elgin's despatch of the 29th November published in Cd. 3308, and having regard to the fact that the Law proposed is supported by the unanimous authority of a Parliament newly elected in a responsible self-governing Colony, the Secretary of State has decided to advise His Majesty not to disallow it.

    Coolies' Education in Ceylon.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Ceylon have now drafted an ordinance for extending educational facilities to the children of Indian coolies employed on the plantations in Ceylon.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As I informed the hon. Member for North Manchester on Tuesday, the draft Ordinance is under the consideration of the Ceylon Legislature.

    Russia and the British Fleet.
    MR. THORNE:I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to send part of the British Fleet to Kronstadt during the second week in May.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): No, Sir. A rumour which I understand has appeared in the Press to this effect is entirely without foundation. The question has not been raised at all.

    Nicaraguan Outrage on the British Flag.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information with regard to the action of an officer of the Nicaraguan Array in cutting down the British flag flying over the house of a British subject, Mr. William Collins, living at Salado; and whether the American Government has been thanked forits friendly action in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: My attention has been called to the account in the
    1060
    Press. I have no other information about the matter, and will make inquiries.

    Sanitation in Egypt.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing the state of destitution in which native children are often to be seen in the larger towns of Egypt, he will advise the Egyptian Government to institute homes for neglected children of both sexes.
    The hon. Member had also given notice of the following Questions:—
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to complaints to the effect that in the early part of List year the banks of the Ismailia Canal running through Cairo were infected by exudations from stagnant residue in the canal bed, no steps having been taken to clean out the canal, as had been done in previous years at low Nile; and whether he will advise the Egyptian Government to adopt measures to prevent the recurrence of this danger to the health of the capital.
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the Egyptian towns of Aswan, Kena, Girga, Sohag, Minia, Fayum, Zagazig, Damietta, Mehalet Kebir, Shibinel Kom, Menuf, Zifta, Mit Ghamr, Benha, and Damanhur, with aggregate populations of 346,000, are still wholly or partly dependent on unfiltered Nile water for drinking purposes, he will advisethe Egyptian Government to institute an improved system.
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any system of drainage and sewerage in the villages or towns of Egypt with the exception of Alexandria.
    SIR E. GREY: This Question and the three others put by the hon. Member relate to questions of Egyptian internal administration. And, while I have every desire to encourage sanitary reform, I must point out that this is one of the matters which receive constant attention from the Egyptian Government, and that the direct interference of His Majesty's Government in matters of administrative

    1061
    detail is both impracticable and undesirable. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the progress of social reform in every country must be gradual, and particular measures must depend upon the resources of the State and the pressure of other claims upon them.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that there is less destitution, both in the adult and infantile population of Egypt, than in most European countries?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no authoritative figures before me, but I should be glad to be assured that that was the truth.

    Capture of a British Subject by Brigands at Salonica.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the circumstances and conditions under which the British subject, Mr. Abbott, of Salonica, who was kidnapped by brigands, was released; what sum was paid by the British Consul to his captors; who provided the money; and whether he will take steps to secure repayment from the Turkish Government, as well as an adequate sum for compensation.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Mr. Abbott was released on the advance by His Majesty's Consul-General of a ransom of £T.15,000, which the Consul was authorised to make from public funds. The recovery of this sum from the Turkish Government is under negotiation. The question of compensation has not been raised, as far as I am aware, in this or in previous similar cases.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Mr. Robert Abbott, a British subject, was a month ago captured by Turkish brigands near Salonica, and has now been ransomed by the British Consul; and, if so, will He say what ransom was paid, from what source it came, and what steps will be taken to recover the amount from the Turkish Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have
    1062
    to-day returned to the hon. and gallant Member for the St. Andrews Burghs.
    MR. FELL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has received any report from the Consul-General in Turkey as to the position of affairs in some of the large seaports, one of which I visited last February, and—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Personal statements are not admissible.

    "The Mikado."
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say whether the views of the Japanese were consulted in withdrawing the licence for The Mikado; on whoso advice did the Lord Chamberlain act, and will he state what were the considerations which prompted the action in this matter; whether the responsibility for the decision rests solely with the Lord Chamberlain; and will he generally reconsider the whole question as affecting the case of this play with a view to withdrawing the prohibition and limiting, by legislation or otherwise, the power of the Lord Chamberlain.
    SIR EDWARD GREY:I understand that the Lord Chamberlain acted on his own responsibility solely. But, with regard to the last part of the Question, I may say that if my advice had been asked or given it would have been entirely in accord with the action which the Lord Chamberlain has taken, for reasons which I should have thought would have been obvious at this moment. I am not, therefore, prepared to reconsider the Question, even if it were in my province to do so.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Who is responsible in this House for the action of the Lord Chamberlain?
    SIR EDWARD GREY:asked for notice.

    British Commercial Interests in Asia Minor.
    MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will appoint at Mersina, Asia Minor, considering the importance of British shipping and other British commercial

    1063
    interests there, a British subject as Consul; and will he say who has had charge of the Consulate there since the promotion to higher posts some five years ago of Lieutenant-Colonel Massey, and two years ago of Captain Townshend.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Up to April, 1905, the British Vice-Consulate for the vilayet of Adana was situated at Adana in order that the Vice-Consul might be able to communicate easily with the Vali and central authorities of the district. Colonel Massey, who was appointed Vice-Consul in February, 1896, was succeeded by Captain Townshend in 1903. On Captain Townshend's transfer to another post in April, 1905, the Vice-Consulate for the vilayet was removed to Mersina on account of the growing commercial importance of the town, and Mr. Teofani Loiso, who was recommended to His Majesty's Government as the most suitable candidate, was appointed unsalaried Vice-Consul and still holds that post. It is doubtful whether a resident British subject with the necessary qualifications could be found at Mersina, and the trade does not appear to justify the appointment of a salaried Vice-Consul.

    Chiswick Council Dispute.
    MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the police in preventing Councillor O'Brien from entering the Chiswick Council Chamber on Thursday, 18th April; and whether, seeing that the Chairman of the Council obtained the services of the police to prevent a councillor attending to his duties, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The police were warned to be in the vicinity of the Chiswick Council Chamber on the 18th instant, as it had been intimated to them that a disturbance was feared; but they took no action to prevent Councillor O'Brien from entering the Council Chamber, nor did they in any way assist in his removal.

    Paddington Borough Council and Local Traders.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
    1064
    for the Home Department if he has now received from the Paddington Borough Council any explanation of their refusal to take proceedings against local traders who have failed to supply the names and addresses of home-workers employed by them.
    MR. GLADSTONE:Not yet, Sir. I understand that the matter is to be submitted to the Council at their meeting next Tuesday.

    Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company.
    MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that, under the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Act of 1859, c. 110, s. 47, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company is bound to deposit with the Board of Trade a copy of any agreement with respect to the conveyance of passengers or goods which that company may make with any other railway or canal company, the company has within the last throe years so deposited a copy of any agreement made with the London and North Western Railway Company; whether other railway companies are bound in similar fashion to deposit with the Board of Trade copies of such agreements; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to impose such obligations on all railway and canal companies.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): A copy of an agreement entered into by the Lancashire and Yorkshire and the London and North Western Railway Companies on the 31st December 1904, was deposited with the Board of Trade in accordance with the provision of the special Act referred to. We are not aware of any similar provision in any Act relating to companies other than the Lancashire and Yorkshire company, but I may point out that all working agreements between railway companies entered into under the authority of Acts incorporating the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, have to be deposited with and approved by the Railway and Canal Commission.

    Woolwich Mechanics for Germany.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if a considerable

    1065
    number of mechanics who were discharged from Woolwich Arsenal have been engaged by a firm of bicycle manufacturers of Dresden, Germany; and, if so, can a copy of their contract of engagement be supplied and can particulars be published in the Labour Gazette of the firms in Germany who are prepared to offer work to unemployed English artisans.
    MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade have no information on the subject referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, and no knowledge of the firms in Germany who are prepared to offer work to unemployed English artisans.
    MR. FELLinquired if it was not the duty of the Board of Trade official to take special note of changes in the labour market of the character indicated in the Question.
    MR. KEARLEYasked for notice of the Question.

    Co-opted Guardians.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the co-option by the Tynemouth Board of Guardians of a member who was defeated at the election, as also the suggested co-option of a defeated member by the Easington Board of Guardians; and if so, will he state whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): A Board of Guardians are empowered by Statute to co-opt a Chairman, or Vice-Chairman, or both, and not more than two other persons from outside their own body but from persons qualified to be guardians of the union. I have no control over the guardians in the matter, but I under stand that at Tynemouth the person co-opted had been an elected guardian during the preceding three years, that his business knowledge had been found to be valuable, and that at the recent election he only lost his seat by ten votes. In the Easington case the matter appears still to be under the consideration of the guardians.

    Irish Poor Law Returns.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has called for Returns from the Local Government Board in Ireland to lay before the English Royal Commission on Poor Law; when are these Returns likely to be required; and will his Department recoup the Irish Local Government Board for the expenses entailed in procuring the Returns indicated.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension in this matter. I have not called for Returns from the Local Government Board for Ireland for the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress, nor would any expenses incurred by that Board in relation to Returns obtained for the Commission be payable out of the Vote for my Department. I may add that the reference to the Royal Commission is not limited to England, but extends to the I United Kingdom.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that Answer to the President of the Irish Local Government Board?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Certainly.

    Postal Addresses in the Welsh Language.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Posmaster-General whether in Wales the Post Office officials refuse to receive or deliver letters if addressed in the Welsh language, and will not speak to a Welshman in his native tongue; and whether, seeing that in Wales and Monmouthshire there are 280,000 Welshmen who speak their native language only, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Post Office does not refuse to receive and deliver correspondence addressed in the Welsh language. Postmasters and postmen with a knowledge of Welsh are appointed in districts where such knowledge is found to be necessary.

    Sick Leave Regulations in the Post Office.
    MR. GODDARD CLARKE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the ordinary sick leave regulations, as stated by the chief medical officer, when giving evidence before the Select Committee, to be six months full pay and six months half-pay, apply to officers who are alleged to be suffering from mental infirmity; and, if not, what is the general practice in such cases, and after what lapse of time is an officer reported on as unfit for the service and recommended for pension.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: the regulations regarding sick leave and pay apply in the case of officers suffering from mental infirmity in the same manner as in other cases. So long as there is a reasonable prospect of eventual recovery sick pay is allowed to established officers, up to a limit of six months on full pay and six months on half pay; but when an officer is certified to be permanently incapacitated he is retired with the, pension or gratuity provided by the Superannuation Acts.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is that the invariable rule?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I imagine so as regards established officers.

    Australian Mail Contracts.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General; if he can state whether the arrangements have yet been made by the British and Australian Governments for the new Australian mail service contracts.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I. hope that satisfactory arrangements for the continuance of the Imperial Mail service to and from Australia will be completed I shortly. I have no official information as to the progress of the arrangements for the additional service to be provided by the Commonwealth Government.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect information from the Commonwealth?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Of course we shall be informed, but we have no responsibility in the matter.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Are there not two contracts, one entered into-by the Imperial Government, and the other by the Commonwealth?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, but we have no control over the Commonwealth contract.

    Music in Leeds Elementary Schools.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the teaching of music in the elementary schools at Leeds which has been given since 1882, and has resulted in benefit to the scholars, there being at present 547 children receiving instruction,, the fees paid more than counterbalancing the expenses during the whole period,, there is any intention on the part of the Board of Education vetoing such teaching, in future.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.): The attention of my right hon. friend has only recently been called to this matter, and an official letter has already been sent to the Leeds Education Authority sanctioning the arrangements under certain reasonable conditions.

    Beer Ingredients.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say what are the ingredients now used in the manufacture of beer in this country.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dews-bury):My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Return (Number 14) on Brewers Licences presented on the 14th February last which contains all the available statistics.
    MR. MORTON: Are there any hops, in beer at all now?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Police Pensions and Income-Tax.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the fact that police pensions have been earned

    1069
    in protection of the public, and that throughout their service the recipients were compelled to contribute thereto a percentage of their pay, he can give an assurance that such pensions will be assessed for income-tax as deferred pay and not as accumulated savings.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. ASQIUTH): I am giving very careful consideration to all the arguments which are urged in favour of admitting any or all of the different classes of pensioners to the benefit of the proposed concession to earned incomes, but I think it will be most convenient if I deal with the question of pensions as a whole when the Finance Bill comes up for consideration.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will it be dealt with in the Finance Bill?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The point can be raised when the Bill is under consideration.
    MR. P. BARLOW: Is the matter still open for discussion?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.

    Village Rifle Clubs.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of members of a village rifle club receiving temporary permission to shoot rooks from the local landlord, he will direct the Inland Revenue authorities not to enforce the taking out of a gun licence, which such use of a rifle technically involves.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I see no reason for any such concession.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: But in view of the stimulus this would give to rifle practice cannot the Government give way on this?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: We are not prepared to diminish the revenue in this way.

    Clerks to Surveyors.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the position of clerks to surveyors of taxes, having regard to the fact that they have responsible public duties to discharge
    1070
    and are paid out of public funds, but have no fixity of tenure and no rights of pension.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The question of the organisation of the offices of surveyor s of taxes is being considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whether the employment of a larger proportion of established officers would be conducive to efficiency. As regards the pay and prospects of clerks at present employed in an unestablished capacity, I have no reason for thinking that their position compares unfavourably with that of persons engaged on similar terms upon the same class of work in other Government Departments.
    MR. C. E. PRICEinquired if members of the engineering staff who were sometimes employed in a like capacity received pensions while the men referred to in the Question did not?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The circumstances of the two staffs are not on the same lines, and I am afraid therefore a comparison is not possible.

    Burwell Crown Farm.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, it He can state the amount which it has been necessary to spend on the erection and alteration of buildings to adapt the Crown farm at Burwell to the requirements of the eighty-two small holders now in occupation; and if the expense has been borne by the Board of Agriculture, by the hon. Member for Newmarket, or by the small holders.
    THE TREASURER TO THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir Edward STRACHEY, Somersetshire, E.): The estimated amount of the expenditure on the erection and adaptation of buildings on the Crown farm at Burwell is £1,800. This amount will be borne on the Land Revenues of the Crown, interest being paid by my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket in the shape of additional rent. He informs me that this additional rent is added to the rents paid by his sub-tenants.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: Does the£1,800 represent the whole expense of placing eighty-two people on this farm?
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I think so, but if the hon. Member will put down a Question I will ascertain definitely.

    Scottish Churches Dispute.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the number of churches in the Highlands of Scotland that have been successfully claimed by the Free Church; and out of that number how many are at present vacant, and on whom the responsibility devolves of seeing that the spiritual interests of the people are duly cared for.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): In the five Highland Synods of the church, viz., Argyll, Moray, Ross, Sutherland and Caithness and Glenelg, the Free Church have prevailed in 113 cases, and the United Free Church in 119 cases. In the case of all the congregations in Orkney and Shetland, of which there are thirty-two, the property has been allocated to the United Free Church. The Royal Commission were charged with the duty of distributing certain property between the two churches, and in that regard their responsibility ends there.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked for an Answer to the last part of his Question.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have no responsibility.

    Dumbarton Drainage Works.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what was the specific nature of the understanding given by the local authority of the burgh of Dumbarton in 1903; what was the nature of the works to which the said undertaking bore reference; whether he is aware that no purification works have been begun, and that all the sewage of the burgh now enters the Leven in an unpurified condition; whether this state of matters has his approval; and, if not, whether he
    1072
    will see that the Local Government Board now take steps to have the undertaking given by the burgh carried into effect if such should involve the construction of purification works.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am informed that the suggestion of the hon. Member as to a specific understanding on this subject is not fully sustained. The Local Government Board after an inquiry by their medical inspector pressed the removal of certain nuisances to which he had drawn attention. They now propose to inquire into the question of the condition of the sewage when it enters the Leven.
    MR. R. DUNCANasked if other burghs had been compelled to undertake sewage purification works by the Government?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice of the Question.

    Ireland and the Court of Criminal Appeal.
    MR. LONSDALE:On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is intended to introduce this session a Bill to provide for a Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland, or to insert clauses in the Bill of Mr. Attorney-General making it applicable to Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): No, Sir. Having regard to the present state of public business, I do not think it will be possible to introduce such a Bill this session. As to the latter part of the Question I must refer my hon. and learned friend to the Attorney-General who is in charge of the Bill.

    Clare Evicted Tenants.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the investigation into the claims of the evicted tenants in county Clare have been completed; and when the work of reinstatement may be expected to commence on a general scale.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The Estates Commissioners inform me that

    1073
    up to the present sixty-two evicted tenants have boon reinstated in county Clare. The great majority of the applications have been investigated, but as I said in reply to a Question yesterday, I do not propose to make any detailed statement on the subject until after the end of this month.

    Irish Agricultural Department.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the indeterminate condition of affairs in the Irish Agricultural Department, he will see that applications for increases in the salaries of the higher officials of the Department shall not be entertained pending the appointment of a successor to Sir Horace Plunkett.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware of any reaon why the administration of the Department should not pursue its ordinary course. I need, however, scarcely add that no such applications for increases of salary are at present under the consideration of the Department.

    Lambert Minors Estate, Athenry.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Report of the Estates Commissioners in connection with the purchase of the Lambert Minors Estate, Athenry, will be submitted to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; is he aware that a number of decrees were taken out at the late quarter sessions held at Gort, and are now ripe for execution on this estate; and, in view of all the circumstances, will he consider the propriety of urging on the Estates Commissioners the desirability of sending in their Report at once, so that a settlement may be effected without putting the decrees into execution.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have had a preliminary inspection made of this estate, which is under the control of the Lord Chancellor during the minority of the owner. The inspector's Report is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners, who will
    1074
    intimate to the Lord Chancellor at an early date the sum which they would be prepared to offer for the purchase of the estate if formal proceedings for sale to them should be instituted under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act 1903.
    In answer to a further Question, the right hon. Gentleman said he was doing I his best to expedite the inspection.

    Lettermore Relief of Distress Scheme.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that in the relief of distress scheme in the Lettermore dispensary district, in the Oughterard Union, no district councillors were included on the relief committees, although it had been promised that the relief would be administered through local committees on which the district councillors were represented; and whether He is aware of the fact that the administration of relief in the Lettermore district is mainly in the hands of a Mr. P. Toole, who is a bailiff and grabber of grass lands and of holdingsof evicted tenants; and whether, in view of these facts, an independent inquiry will be made into the administration of relief in this district, where the poorest and most deserving people are neglected.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Distress Committee in the districtreferred to was formed by the local clergy and not by the Local Government Board. If any of the district councillors desire to become members of the committee they should apply direct to that body. The I Local Government Board understand that Mr. Toole referred to in the Question is simply employed by the committee as paymaster, and has no part in the administration of the work.

    Clifden Pier.
    MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cause of the delay in constructing the pier at Clifden, Connemara, which was promised under the Marine Works Act; and whether he can state when this work will be commenced.
    MR. BIRRELL: My predecessor's promise that the Government would

    1075
    endeavour to find a certain sum for marine works at Clifden was conditional upon the county council's undertaking to provide certain ancillary works, including an approach road. Upon this point no communication has yet been received from the county council, and therefore no progress in the consideration of the matter can be made.

    Oranmore Outrage.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 22nd April the house of Patrick Burke, near Oranmore, county Galway, was fired into by masked men; that Burke had refused to give up his employment as herd to a Mr. Costello at the dictation of the local branch of the United Irish League; whether this is considered by the police to be the reason for the attack; and whether the police have made any arrests in connection with the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL:I am informed by the police authorities that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question, except that it is not known whether the offender or offenders were masked. The police are not aware that the United Irish League had any connection with the matter, and they have no evidence to show what the motive of the offender may have been. No arrests have been made.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman any hope of any arrests being made in connection with this outrage?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir.

    United Irish League—Clonfert Branch.
    THE MARQUESS OF HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Clonfert branch of the United Irish League, passed on Sunday, 21st April, giving notice to all graziers to surrender their grass farms, and threatening to publish the names of the graziers in order to focus public opinion on their action; and will he say what steps he has taken to protect the graziers of Galway in their lawful avocations.
    MR. BIRRELL:I am informed that a resolution to the effect stated was published in a local newspaper. The police have taken, and will continue to take, all necessary steps for the preservation of the peace, and for the protection of all persons in the exercise of their legal rights.

    Brosna Outrage.
    MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Wednesday, 24th April, the house of a farmer named Forde, of Brosna, county Kerry, was attacked by a party of men, armed and disguised, who fired several shots into the dwelling; whether the reason for this attack has been ascertained; and whether any persons have yet been made amenable in connection therewith.
    MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the Question. The house is situate ort an evicted farm held by Forde, but is occupied by a caretaker. The motive for the offence can only be a matter of opinion. The police are still investigating the case, and no one yet has been: made amenable.

    Crime in Ireland.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to an urgent appeal issued yesterday to Members of this House to provide Lord Ashtown with £3,000 a year to enable him to circulate accounts of alleged crimes in Ireland. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in it that events are constantly happening in Ireland of a most startling, shocking, and outrageous character, do the police reports confirm this allegation, and can any steps be taken to put a stop to Lord Ashtown's scandalous campaign?
    MR. SPEAKER:I do not think the penultimate word used by the hon. Member is in order, when referring to a Member of the other House.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He is not a Member of the other House. He is only an Irish Peer.
    MR. SPEAKER: Still, he is not hers to defend himself.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He can appeal to the Courts.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: I will withdraw the word "scandalous" and substitute "mischievous."
    MR. BIRRELL: I did see the paper in question. I certainly considered it contained a misleading account of the position in Ireland, and I hope the people of England will not assume that the condition of Ireland is as described in that letter.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statements contained in this letter are taken out of one or other of the numerous Nationalist papers?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

    Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the funds created for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, under the Labourers (Ireland) Act of 1906, will be in any way affected by the deficiency in the several counties occasioned by land purchase finance.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am aware the funds made available for the purposes of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts by the Act of 1906 will not be affected.

    Irish Salt Firkin Butter.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can say what protection is afforded to the vendors of Irish salt firkin butter in the Butter and Margarine Bill when it contains more than 16 per cent, and less than 20 per cent, of water; and whether he intends to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on butter regulations in the year 1902 with regard to this butter.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Bill makes no alteration in the amount of moisture permissible in butter, whether English or Irish, unless it has been made, blended, re-worked or treated in a factory, The recommendation referred to it by
    1078
    the hon. Member was carried out by regulations issued in 1902.

    Naval Debates and the Hague Conference.
    MR. MURRAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the. Prime Minister if he will arrange to take Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates before the meeting of the Hague Conference.
    Mr. BELLAIRS: At the same time may I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that one-third of the armoured tonnage of this years' naval programme will be laid down, or otherwise, according to the measure of success which attends the proposals of the Government for the arrest of armaments; whether he is aware that the Admiralty and our delegates to the Hague Conference possess no authentic information as to the armaments of the six large armoured vessels Germany has commenced or is to lay down this year; and whether, in view of the present uncertainty, he will arrange for the discussion of Vote 8, Navy Estimates, to be taken after the results of the Hague Conference are known.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): We will take Vote 8 as usual at a late period of the session so as to give the House the opportunity of discussing the programme with such emendation and revision as the experience of several months may suggest. That is the usual practice; it is a convenient one; and I see no reason why it should be departed from.

    British Investments in the Colonies.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if the information at his disposal endorses the calculation that the investments of the Mother Country in the British Empire exceed £1,500,000,000 sterling, of which about one-third is in Colonial and Indian Government securities, one-third in commercial and industrial enterprises, and one-third in corporation and other loans; and if he can inform the House what proposals the Government has brought, or is going to bring, before the Imperial Conference now sitting to advance the

    1079
    industrial development, internal and external, of the over-sea dominions of the British people, so as to secure an adequate return for this outlay of capital by co-operative societies of working men, limited liability companies, and private individuals.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: This is a rather large question, and I cannot say at the moment whether the hon. and gallant gentleman's estimate is correct. However that may be, there is of course no question as to the magnitude of the interests to which he refers. And though there are no definite proposals to be laid before the Conference by His Majesty's Government, the whole subject is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government and of the Conference.
    SIR H. VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the terms of the preference resolution agreed to by the Conference?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with the Government.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Colonial preference is advocated in the interest of those who have shares in Colonial enterprises?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend had better address his questions to those who are in favour of Colonial preference.

    Women on Local Authorities.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that elections for borough councils take place on 1st November, he will introduce before that date a Bill to enable women to serve on local bodies.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We fully intend to proceed during this session with a Bill to enable women to serve on local authorities.

    Standing Committees.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the lax attendance of the Members of Standing Committees; whether he is aware that, while those
    1080
    Committees each consist, of over eighty Members, the attendance at each of them frequently falls to thirty Members or less; and whether, in view of the fact that four such Committees are now created, to be charged with work of increased importance, he will, in the interests of efficiency, ask the House to consent to a new Standing Order ruling that any Member of a Grand Committee who is absent from his duties on two consecutive occasions without good cause shall forthwith be discharged from the Committee and another Member appointed in his place by the Committee of Selection.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that the facts are as stated, but if the hon. Member will read the new Standing Orders he will see that the discharge of Members for non-attendance is provided for.

    Lords and Commons.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the legislatures of the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire have been framed, where they are representative, on the model of the legislature of the Mother Country, but that in these legislative systems there is no instance of a legislative council or second chamber framed on the hereditary principle, and no instance of a trace of a spiritual peerage, inquiry will be made, in view of the proposed alterations in the relations of the House of Lords and the House of Commons towards each other, as to the reason of the conscious departure in the form and structure of the Colonial legislative systems from their original by the omission in every case of a chamber of hereditary and spiritual Members, which in the British Parliament have so seriously controlled and affected the course of legislation.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the reasons are pretty obvious, and any formal inquiry into the matter would cause unnecessary delay.

    Transfer of Land—Legal Costs.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government can furnish an approximate estimate of the aggregate amount of the

    1081
    legal costs annually incurred by landowners and others on sales, mortgages, and transfers of mortgages of land in England and Wales, and the costs which they would incur on the like transactions if a system of general registration with absolute title were in force under the Land Transfer Acts.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No doubt such a Return would be most useful, and I will inquire if it can be obtained without undue labour and cost.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an Answer if I put the Question down at a later date?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, but at a distinctly later date.
    COLONEL HERBERT: In the event of a Return being got out will the figures as to Wales be distinguished from the others?
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not the slightest idea what form the Return will take. The point will be considered.

    Irish Agricultural Department Vice-Presidency.
    MR. MOORE:I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider a practical knowledge of agriculture essential as a qualification in any candidate for the position of Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member may be assured that no one but a thoroughly qualified person will be selected for this post.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the claim of the Members of the Irish bar who are willing to take this or any other job?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Intermediate Education.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that no vote for the purpose of intermediate
    1082
    education in Ireland appears on the Irish Estimates, and that consequently no discussion of this subject can be raised in the usual way; and whether, in view of the considerable income at the disposal of the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland), the failure of the Board to put into operation some of the chief recommendations of the Viceregal Commission of 1899, and the general dissatisfaction with its policy in other regards, he will give an opportunity to enable the state of secondary education in Ireland to be brought under the review of Parliament.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:I doubt if there will be any opportunity of discussing this subject on any of the ordinary Votes, and I will see as the session goes on whether an opportunity can be found for discussing it.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting some item on the Estimates, so that the House may have the opportunity it does not get now of discussing the work of this nominated board whose expenditure amounts to £80,000 a year?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will consult the Chief Secretary. I quite recognise the desirability of having such a discussion.

    Education Bills.
    MR. CLOUGH: I bog to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pass the Education (Special Religious Instruction) Bill and the Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill through this House this year; and whether he can state that the Second Reading of one or both of them will be taken before Whitsuntide.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that either of these Bills will be taken before Whitsuntide.
    MR. CLOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an Answer to the first part of my Question?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware of no particular decision come to one way or the other.

    Imperial Defence.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can give the names of the naval and military officials who formed the committee under General Owens, which inquired into the defences of Malta and Gibraltar.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not usual to make public the names of members of committees of this nature, but I shall be happy to give the names to the hon. Member in private.

    The Session.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended by the Government that the House should adjourn in July and meet again in the autumn, or whether some other, and what, alteration is to be made with reference to the time usually fixed for the commencement of the summer recess.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet give my hon. friend any information on this subject.
    MR. S. T. EVANS:said his reason for putting the Question was that the Whips of the Government had been making inquiries as to whether the House should rise in June or July, in which case hon. Members would need to make different arrangements.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was not aware that any direction had I been given for an official inquiry. Many Members are very much interested in this matter and hold strong views, but I dare say they will take the ordinary means of propagating their opinions.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been called to a Resolution on the Paper, for which no date had been fixed, affirming the desirability of the, business of the House being so arranged that the Session should last in no year beyond the end of June, and whether, in view of the widespread feeling on all sides in favour of that change, he would see that some opportunity was given to hon. Members to express their views.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are all aware of the arguments pro
    1084
    and con on this Question, and, of course, we cannot clip this session short at the end of June without adding something equivalent at another time. I am not prepared to say whether that course would be adopted.
    MR. R. DUNCAN:asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take accurate means of ascertaining the desire of each Member.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That means taking a plebiscite, I suppose. I have always protested against making i the convenience of Members the main consideration in settling the business of the House. The settlement of the business of the House must depend on the public interest.
    MR. S. T. EVANS:gave notice that he would repeat his Question on a distinctly early date.
    MR. MYERasked whether, if the Prime Minister objected to studying the convenience of Members, he would study their health.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say I do not consider the convenience of hon. Members. What I did suggest was that there were other considerations to be borne in mind.

CHINESE LABOUR.

  LEAVE REQUESTED FOR MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. WALSH,in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer he had received a short time before, asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to an urgent matter of definite public importance—namely, the presence in the Transvaal of 250 Chinese coolies, contrary to the provisions of the existing Chinese Ordinance and only at this moment disclosed to the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have considerable doubts as to whether the Motion of the hon. Member comes within the rule of urgency. After giving such attention as I have been able to the matter, I think it does not come within the rule. There is no way of stopping these men going to the Transvaal. It is too late now; they are in the Transvaal. As far as I am

  1085
  able to judge, they come within the jurisdiction of the Transvaal Government, and, therefore it rests with the Transvaal Government to deal with the matter. For that reason I do not think that the Motion comes within the rule of urgency.
  MR. SHACKLETON:asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the feeling which had been aroused about these coolies, He would arrange to put down the Colonial Vote on a very early day.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will consider the question of my hon. friend.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsuggested that the Vote which would give the opportunity for free discussion to Members would be that of the Secretary of State, and expressed a hope that whatever arrangement was made the debate on it would be left unfinished, so that in the case of other developments further opportunities would be afforded of discussion later in the Session.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister whether he could give the House any forecast of the course of public business between this and the Whitsuntide holidays.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The business on Monday will be the Resolution which stands in my name for the allocation of time for the consideration of the Army (Territorial Forces) Bill. On Tuesday there will be the introduction of the Irish Council Bill. On Wednesday the Report of the financial resolutions will be concluded, and other Bills will be taken. That concludes next week. On the following Monday the Finance Bill will be the first order, continued on Tuesday. On the Wednesday the Motion for the adjournment will be moved, and on Thursday Supply will be taken.
VISCOUNT TURNOURasked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware that, in answer to a Question of his some sixteen days ago, he stated that he hoped to be able to announce in
1086
a week when his Resolution concerning the House of Lords would be taken.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord must be aware, from his experience of life, that hopes are not always realised.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Harold Cox and Mr. Theodore Taylor; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Shipman and Mr. Ridsdale.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir John Baker; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Theodore Taylor.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill): Mr. Fetherstonhaugh; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Land Law (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill): Mr. Moore.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee that they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill): Mr. Maddison, Mr. Alden, Sir John Benn, and Mr. Hart Davies; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill); Mr. John Ward, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Brunner, and Mr. Mond.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee that they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following fifteen Members (in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Seddon, Mr. Vivian, Mr. Brace,

1087
Mr. Hugh Law, Mr. McHugh, Mr. M'Killop, Mr. James Mason, Viscount Helmsley, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Abel Smith, Sir Samuel Scott, Mr. Long, Sir Frederick Banbury, Mr. Lambton, and Captain Balfour.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee that they had added to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Liquor Traffic (Local Option) (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Thomas Richards, Sir Walter Nugent, Mr. Sheehy, Mr. Boland, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Sherwell, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Nield, Captain Faber, Mr. Ratcliff, Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Remnant, Captain Craig, Mr. Meysey-Thompson, and Mr. Watson Rutherford.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILL.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Taxation and Purchase of Land by Local Authorties," presented by Mr. Thomasson; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Levy, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Alexander Harvey, Mr. John Robertson, and Mr. Snowden; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 30th May, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

SUPPLY [7TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

  CLASS III.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £36,985, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
  MR. PATRICK WHITErose to complain of the administration and the excessive numerical strength of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and of the injustice of the exorbitant rates levied on the citizens of Dublin for their upkeep. He occupied, he said, a somewhat anomalous position in rising to move the reduction of a Vote which he considered was already too small, but it was the only means by which he could bring before the House a system of taxation without representation which at present prevailed in Ireland, and which was opposed to every constitutional principle of Government. He wished to say at the outset of his remarks, firstly, that he made no attack on the personnel of the force to whom he was doubtless well known, but rather on the system of government which gave it birth;and, secondly, that he had not much confidence in appealing to Ministers for justice to any part of Ireland. For many years he had been a silent but close observer of successive Irish Ministers, and their invariable practice in reply to the criticisms of Irish government had been to extenuate what they could not decently defend, and where they could do neither to wring their hands in despair and say, "What can I do? I have no power to interfere." And this declaration of a British Minister was supposed to be a final answer to any Irish grievance, no matter how galling the injustice might be. But sometimes there was a change, and when an unconscionable bargain was being forced upon Ireland the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was selected to defend it. In his opinion, if a Minister acknowledged the existence of unjust taxation, and found that under the existing law he had no power to remedy it, he should come to the House and ask for remedial legislation, and he believed the present House would give him the requisite authority, whatever unhappy fate might befall it in another place. He had no desire to say anything unkind about the present Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman was in the springtime of his official career; he had made many legislative promises. He (Mr. White) would patiently await the harvest time to see what he would bring in, but in passing he might say that he had kept close count of the right hon. Gentleman's political pulse, and he

  1089
  thought he had discovered symptoms which, however slight at present, if he allowed them to develop would eventually, as in the case of so many of his predecessors, impair his political usefulness. He would trace the origin and growth of this infamous police tax. For the year ending the 31st March, 1836, the expenditure on the Dublin Metropolitan Police was £40,511—in round numbers, one half contributed from various local sources and the other half voted by Parliament. To day the amount asked for was £151,000, an increase of £111,000. In the year 1837 an Act was passed "to make more effectual provisions relating to the police in the district of Dublin Metropolis." In describing the area of their operations the Act contained the significant words, "That Her Majesty's Castle of Dublin and all places situate and contained" within certain boundaries. Did the insertion of those words "Her Majesty's Castle of Dublin" not prove their contention absolutely, that the force was nine-tenths military or Imperial, and should be paid for out of Imperial funds? Otherwise, why should special provision have been made for the protection of that malodorous institution called Dublin Castle, that ancient citadel of foul oppression which feasted on the life-blood of the Irish people? The authors of that Act recognised, as the people of Dublin did to-day, that the great object of the police was to uphold and protect a foreign garrison in a hostile because a persecuted country. Since that Act became law down to the present day, the ratepayers of Dublin and surrounding townships had had to pay 8d. in the £ on their valuation, no matter what increase might take place in consequence of now buildings or the re-valuation of the city which was now taking place. Let them see how this rate compared with English cities and towns:—Dublin, 8d.; Manchester, 5d.; Sheffield (and police acting as fire brigade), 4¼d.; Leeds, 3·84d.; Bradford, 3·63d.; Hull, 4·293d.; Glasgow, 4d.; Birmingham, 4d. He was loth to quote Birmingham as a fair case, because he was quite sure the President of the Board of Trade would agree with him that the force in Birmingham was insufficient for the protection of life and property, owing to something in its environment. What was the cause of
  1090
  this disproportionment in rates between rich and progressive English cities and poverty-stricken Dublin? There could be and there was only one reason. In English towns the police was a civic force responsible to the local authority. It was to the interest of the local ratepayer to keep down the cost, and it was to the interest of the police to serve the ratepayers. They were the willing servants of a free people in a free country. The reverse was the condition in Dublin. The people had no control over the police, and the latter were not the servants of the ratepayers who paid them, but the representatives of Imperial power, who sometimes regarded it as their duty, according to the temper of the occupier of Dublin Castle, to harass mere Irishmen. He would ask the Committee to come back to the year 1841. At that time the population of Dublin was 235,864; in the sixty years to 1901 the population had increased to 290,638, an increase of 54,774; but in the same period of time the total upkeep of the Metropolitan Police had increased from £60,000 to about £160,000, or at the rate of nearly £2 per head of the increased population. Could anyone attempt to justify that enormously increased impost? Dublin at present enjoyed an exceptional immunity from crime of a serious character, with which no English city could compare. In the year 1862 the indictable offences in the whole district of the Dublin Metropolitan District numbered 9,520 while in the year 1902 they numbered only 2,696 or about one-fourth of what they were when the police force cost half what it did now. With regard to summary offences which were returnable for trial, in 1862 they numbered 43,694, while in 1902 they only numbered 29,726, so that increase in taxation had corresponded with diminution of crime. He would give the Committee some statistics with regard to the cost of police in English towns. In Dublin with its population of 390,187 the cost of the upkeep of the police in 1901 was £160,183. In Glasgow, with a population of 760,423, it was only £134,192, while the strength of the force was l,379 as against the 1,172 in the Dublin force. The population of Manchester was 542,872 and the cost of police, £116,808. In Liverpool, with a population of 684,947, it was £193,273. If the cities of England were taken it would be found that the

  1091
  cost per head for the upkeep of the police was infinitely less than that of Ireland. The sum per head of the people of Leeds and of Sheffield was 2s. 6d., the cost per head in Dublin was 8s. 2½d. There was, as competent authorities agreed, practically no professional criminal class in Dublin, yet let the Committee compare the conditions with those which existed in cosmopolitan London. In London the charge per head of the population for the upkeep of the police was 6s. 6½d. as against 8s. 2½d. in Dublin. In London there was one policeman for every 380 of the population as against one for every 333 in Dublin. In wealthy London the police rate was 5d. in the £; in Dublin 8d. If London was policed at the same rate as Dublin, it would cost the ratepayers £559,000 per annum more than it did at present, while in London the police were expected to do many duties not imposed on the police in Dublin. He thought he had proved conclusively that Dublin was the most lawful and peace-abiding city in the Empire. When a city was over-policed and that city was a crimeless city it led to corruption in many ways. They all knew that from time to time emissaries had been sent out from Dublin Castle to provoke conspiracies to justify the existence of the police, and the existing position was a direct incentive to manufacture charges. He had in his hand a copy of the "Five cases" circular issued by the Chief Commissioner of the Police of Dublin in January, 1897. Would any member of the Committee attempt to justify such a

  Name.

  Rank and Number.

  Number of Cases made in past twelve months.

  Number of cages made in preceding twelve months.

  Superintendent's Remarks.

  One would imagine that the standard of efficiency of a policeman ought to be the absence of crime in his patrol, or the absence of complaint on the part of people residing or doing business on his patrol rather than the number of cases he succeeded in making. However, it was not so in Dublin. A policeman was put on the black list if he did not make cases. In the effort to make cases he would take the case of the licensed trade. For every conviction secured up to 1905, a case was dismissed. In licensing cases the Chief Commissioner avowed that he had no
  circular if it had to do with any country in the world except Ireland? They would look on it as an outrage; but because it had to do with Ireland somebody would be found to stand up and defend it. In Dublin licensed houses were owned by the licensees. Every man in possession of a licence had his all invested in it. He was not tied to a brewer or to a distiller. It was therefore his interest to conduct his house respectably, for two endorsed convictions and a third conviction not endorsed would put an end to his existence. Yet how was he treated? His house was visited again and again. His customers were cross-examined. They were told to stand up and in some cases they were even asked to walk a chalk line. Why was all this? Not to vindicate the law—a policeman in England as a rule strove to do nothing more—but in Dublin he had to make cases in order to satisfy his superiors, and in order to try to justify his own and their existence. That might seem an extraordinary statement, but the circular to which he had referred was a direct incentive to the police to manufacture cases. It was a kind of black list presented periodically to the Chief Commissioner containing the names of patrol officers and men who had made less than five cases within three months. It contained the name of patrol officers and men who had made (either by arrests or summons) less than five cases within the last three months and was headed as follows:—
  function. He said the magistrate was the proper person to investigate every charge. With every respect for the Commissioner of Police, it was his duty to investigate the details of every charge brought against a ratepayer, and to weigh the circumstances carefully before he allowed a summons to be issued. But he only did this when the men under him were likely to get into trouble. He would give a typical example. Within the last few months a sergeant named Cox arrested a man for being drunk on licensed premises. The man had been

  1093
  removed from the licensed premises five times before the sergeant arrived on the scene, and when he did arrive on the scene the principal assistant in the house was in the act of putting him out. Sergeant Cox made his Report, and the Chief Commissioner ordered three summonses to be issued, one for disorderly conduct, one for supplying drink to a drunken man, and one for permitting drunkenness. The summonses were signed by the magistrate, but withdrawn when the fact was brought to the knowledge of the Chief Commissioner that the prosecuting sergeant had made a Report which would have been contradicted by the station sergeant. In reference to this case a question was asked in the House and the answer given was that the summonses were withdrawn because there was some doubt as to the "recollection" of the prosecuting sergeant. If Colonel Ross's attention had not been called to this case the summonses would, of course, have been issued, and dismissed, as 50 per cent, of the summonses were; but if, in calling attention to the case the person who did so had not disclosed the false nature of the Report made by Sergeant Cox, contradicted as it was by the station sergeant and a constable, the cases would have gone on and the licensed trader would have been put to great expense. That case was but an example, and whatever opinions his hon. friends might have on liquor questions he was sure they were all agreed that those engaged in the licensed trade were entitled to whatever protecton the law gave them. He hoped he had convinced the Committee that Dublin was a most orderly and peaceful city, yet the most police-ridden and police-taxed city in the three kingdoms. He had no doubt that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches were eager to stand up and—to their own satisfaction— completely demolish his case with some rusty, but oft-used arguments supplied; by the Lords of the Treasury. There was no one in the House more capable of dressing in soothing words, well used wares than right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had no doubt that he would be told that the proportion of the British exchequer contribution to the Dublin Metropolitan Police was larger than that
  1094
  of any other city in the kingdom. He freely admitted that was so, but that furnished no answer to his case, for no other city in the kingdom except London had a force not under civic control; the force in every other town was a civic force, and if they wanted a semi-Imperial establishment in Dublin they should pay for it out of Imperial funds. Ireland did not require one-fourth of the present force; they were for England's purposes, and she should pay for them. The number of police in Dublin bore no proportion to anything except the broken promises of the right hon. Gentlemen's predecessors in office. The matter was once before put before the Lords of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was most sympathetic and promised to use his influence, but apparently his influence was not sufficient to get any reduction. Four reasons were given against it which were not important. One was the configuration of the roads—which was not a strong argument, because there were roads in other parts of the Empire which contained a greater number of miles. Another argument was that Dublin was not a provincial town but the scat of Government. It was an argument of the Nationalist Members that if for the purposes of the town they were excessive they ought to be reduced and the saving in cost ought to go to the Irish taxpayers. They admitted there was an alien Government in Dublin and said that if the Government gave Dublin the control of the police she would pay for them. The over-taxation of the citizens of Dublin for the upkeep of an unnecessary force was but one of the many instances which abounded in every Government department in Ireland, and the multiplication of which had made Ireland, notwithstanding the fertility of its soil, the poorest country in the world. He quite recognised that the right hon. Gentleman was surrounded by many difficulties; he was the heir to many bad traditions, and the greatest drawback was that the Government of England in Ireland had no moral force behind it. The difficulties might be great, but they were not insurmountable. He would quote for him the noble words recently uttered by an

  1095
  eminent statesman who had now become Prime Minister of England. These were his words—
  "The Irish people are entitled to a better and a different form of Government, a Government springing from and controlled by the people themselves."
  Let the right hon. Gentleman adopt those words in their entirety and the question would be solved; Ireland would be happy and prosperous; they would cease to bother themselves about the many failings and shortcomings of the Government. They would in their own land mind their own business, for it was only the paternal hand of a paternal Government deriving its power from a Legislature on Irish soil that would need no force to win respect and obedience to its every wish. He begged to move.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid he seconded the Motion because he happened to be one of the Members of the municipal authority which represented the citizens of Dublin and who had yearly to levy a rate for this heavy import. There was no question that it was creating great annoyance and it was considered a hardship that the Members of the Dublin Corporation should be compelled to levy a rate of 8d. in the £ for the upkeep of the police. He did not intend to say a word against the police as a body. They were as fine a body of men as any in the Empire. They were, however, under the control of Dublin Castle and had to do as Dublin Castle ordered. They had heard from the hon. Member for Meath that it was not expected of the police to preserve the city from crime but rather to make crime. The circular the hon. Member referred to was only a corollary of one issued some time ago, wherein a sergeant of a particular division insisted that at least five cases per month should be brought in by every policeman in the district. Such a thing could not have taken place in this country. It would not be tolerated for twenty-four hours in England that they should pay for the upkeep of the police, and have no voice in the control of that body. Year after year this question came up before the corporation, and they were asked by several corporators not to levy this tax. They had done everything they could
  1096
  to draw attention to the grievance. They had appealed to the representatives of the Government in Ireland and had received honeyed words of every occasion. The right hon. Member for Dover admitted in 1902 that this tax was excessive, and expressed sympathy with them when they protested, and there the matter ended, and the tax went on as before. Was it the intention of the House to compel the Dublin Corporation to take the matter into its own hands and refuse to levy this unjust tax? The hon. Member for Meath had pointed out what was paid in England and Scotland for the upkeep of the police. Was it expected that the citizens of Dublin would stand idly by and let this go on much longer? He was not one of those who had taken any extreme side with reference to this question in the past. But when it came before the Corporation on the last occasion it was proposed that the levy should not be made. He did not support that proposition, but supported a proposition that they should make the levy and hold the money. The matter came up again last year, and wise counsels again prevailed and the levy was made. He recognised that the police had to be maintained, but contended that they should be maintained at a reasonable cost. The question must come up again, and unless they had some promise from the right hon. Gentleman that something would be done to put Dublin on an equality with such big towns as Manchester, Bradford, Liverpool, and Glasgow, he could not answer for what course would be taken by the Dublin Corporation next year. It was a serious question, but one which had to be faced. He did not wish to put obstacles in the way of the right hon. Gentleman, and did not like to bring the question forward now because he knew it was a legacy from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. In 1856 the valuation of the city was £510,569 11s., and the tax was 8d. in the £ for the upkeep of the police; the valuation in 1902 was £871,119, and although the police force was numerically the same as in 1856, the same charge of 8d. in the £was levied on the increased valuation. Dublin was not standing still. Its valuation was increasing, but for every £ of increase an additional 8d. was levied for the cost of the police. Would the right hon.

  1097
  Gentleman look into that matter and explain how that came about? When the tax was first imposed fifty years ago it was not to exceed 8d. in the £, but the maximum had always been maintained, although the valuation had increased and the police force had not. That was a most extraordinary thing. When he heard of 8s. 2½d. for the upkeep of the police in Dublin he asked himself whether this money could not be put to better uses for which money was urgently required, for the housing of the people and so forth, rather than on an ornamental force, because it was admitted that crime did not exist in the city. His hon. friend had already called attention to what was paid in England as contrasted with Ireland. In Dublin they paid 8s. 2½d., whereas in a place like Manchester they paid only 4s. 3d., and in Birmingham 3s. l½d. Surely there must be something wrong if the City of Dublin was called upon to pay 8s. 2£d. In Dublin the strength of the police was 1,172, or one policeman to every 330 of the population. In Glasgow the strength of the police was 1,379, or one policeman to every 551 of the population. In Birmingham the strength of the police was 1,820 for a population of 522,182, or one policeman to each 636 of the population. Surely, it was hardly necessary to argue the matter further. Was Dublin more turbulent, was crime greater there, that they should be compelled to have one policeman for every 330 of the population? It was an outrage on the city; it was a crime to impose such a charge on a city which wanted development, and where the unfortunate poor had to pay a charge which rightly should only be something like 4d. in the pound. The difference between that charge and the amount actually paid represented something like £15,000, a sum which could be better spent in the upkeep of the city. He hoped and trusted that they would not receive purely empty promises, but that the matter would be seriously considered and something done. It had been stated that the whole sum for the upkeep of the police was £150,000, but, as had been pointed out, if they wanted an Imperial force by all menus let them pay for it. What they objected to was the imposition of this charge on Dublin. In Dalkey, which might be con-
  1098
  sidered on the borders of Dublin, and where there were suburban residences, they had a population of 3,396, and there were twenty-seven police to keep them in order. Then in Lerwick with a population of 4,500 the number of police to keep that population in order was three. He certainly thought that any honest man—and there were honest Englishmen on both sides of the house—would be prepared to do justice to Ireland and to Dublin. Something must be done to relieve that city of this terrible tax. He spoke as a member of the Dublin Corporation. He had endeavoured in a humble way to persuade his colleagues to see that the tax was levied, and he had promised that the question should be brought before the House. He had come from a sick bed to redeem his pledge, and he appealed to the fairplay of Englishmen to do justice by seeing that justice was done in regard to this tax, which was protested against by every section of the community—Protestants and Catholics, Unionists and Nationalists—who all said that it was a scandal which should not exist, and he hoped the Government would see their way to do something to relieve them from it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—"That a sum, not exceeding £36,885, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Patrick White.)
  MR. McKEAN,said the figures which had been quoted by his hon. friends were irrefutable, and everyone who had listened to the speeches they had made must have come, to the conclusion that they had disclosed a scandal of the first magnitude, and one which required redress at the very earliest opportunity. There was another and very important aspect of this question. If the police force of Dublin were reduced to its proper proportions to-morrow, the question would be still unsolved in many ways, because the whole spirit of the system was vicious and rotten. Why? Because the system on which the Dublin Metropolitan police were controlled and administered was one that was contrary to everything that was natural. The policeman in Ireland was no more than an official

  1099
  idler. As a rule he degenerated into a uniformed loafer. The police themselves were not to be blamed for this; it was the spirit of the system; the cold, hard, official system was the cause. His theory was that a policeman should be not only an officer engaged in the detection and prevention of crime, but should be a sort of little; parish providence, looking after wastrels, and trying in his own way, and so far as the conditions and limitations of his office permitted him, to rescue these unfortunate people. His right hon. friend had referred to the case of Lerwick; lethim also refer to that case in another connection. He found that in Lerwick a policeman was engaged in various duties in addition to his ordinary duties. He was engaged, for instance, under the Sanitary Acts, and the Food and Drugs Acts, and he looked after the fishing vessels, etc. In the same column of the Return from which he was reading, he found that those duties, in regard to the police in Ireland, were marked nil. They had no extra duties. No; the Dublin policeman stood at the corner, very, near a public-house, a vast mountain of bones and flesh, doing absolutely nothing of value for the inflated salary that he was paid. That was typical of English methods of administration in Ireland—the maximum of expenditure with the minimum of result. They wanted this state of things ended, and ended at the earliest possible moment. The Dublin police were singularly intelligent, and, so far as their conditions allowed, a very reputable body of men. Personally he had not one word to say against the Dublin policemen; but he did say that the present system only resulted in defrauding the public, while it demoralised and degraded the policemen. There were ways in which the Dublin police might be employed. They could, he would suggest, assist in the administration of compulsory education by helping the attendance inspectors to get the children to school. Did they do that? Oh, no; in the place where he lived the attendance inspector got no sort of assistance from the police, who were too lordly to give it. Why? Because they were not under local control. The whole system was useless, owing to the centralised and bureaucratic
  1100
  methods of the Government. Until they pulled down this centralised system in Ireland, and until they put the police under the local control of the people's representatives, they would never rectify its existing defects and evils. The police could be usefully employed in aiding charitable associations, because they had knowledge of the slums of Dublin, and knew the men who were out of employment and who were deserving of assistance. But the Dublin police would not condescend to that sort of thing, whereas, in fact, these various employments of their time should form part of their essential duties. It was a well-known fact, and it was very frequently the subject of comic illustrations, that the Dublin policeman was always conspicuous by his absence when there was a row; and, when heads were broken, eyes blackened, and noses bleeding, the policeman turned up and settled the whole affair.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: That does not happen in Dublin.
  MR. McKEANsaid perhaps the hon. Gentleman's information was better than his, but he had himself, in Dublin, looked out for the policeman to see if he would come and separate the combatants. No; he came just after the whole thing was over, and, like the deus ex machina, he appeared and settled everything. In London, the police, he believed, did give value for their salaries. Anybody passing through the main thoroughfares of London could witness the hard work which the policeman did in controlling the traffic. There was one place in England, and one officer in England, which place and which officer presented to his mind a valuable object lesson in what a police force could be made to do, and the magnificent work which could be got out of it. If the Committe would permit him, he would like to quote some passages from an article written by Mr. W. B. Gentle, the head of the Brighton police. He said—
  "The police can also encourage and protect poor children who are suffering from exposure from leading the lives their fathers have been forced to lead before them. For example, perhaps a father goes home at night and finds six or seven children hungry and asking for food, and badly clothed. He has no food to

  1101
  give them, and goes out feeling that he will get something to eat in some way: During his weary search for work temptation suddenly presents itself—he steals some food for his starving children and is arrested. It is that kind of crime in Brighton that I am endeavouring to prevent. My plan is this with the Children's Clothing Fund: A policeman sees a child badly clothed; he inquires about the father's surroundings and circumstances, and eventually with my approval the family is provided with clothes and food, and employment is found for the father. That obviates the necessity for that man to steal and prevents crime in its initial stage."
  He thought the policemen in Ireland would be much better employed upon a plan of that sort than in spying after Irish Members of Parliament and other unfortunate people of that sort. The Brighton chief constable went on to say—
  "This would have an excellent moral influence on the police just as much as on the poor; it puts the police in better touch with the public, and cultivates the policemen's intelligence and powers of observation. This scheme will be gradually developed and extended. Every time the subject is discussed and made known some further benefit to the public generally discloses itself, and in whatever police force this plan has been tried it has succeeded. This fund in Brighton is entirely under my own personal jurisdiction, assisted by a committee of local ladies and gentlemen. The policeman always has cards with him with details in each case—name, address, number in family, father in employment or not, if in employment where, and how long in present situation, furniture of house and various other particulars. He then reports to the superintendent; the superintendent inquires still more closely and recommends what is best for each member of the family. The superintendent then reports to me. If the father is out of work every effort is made to find him employment; the mother is requested to bring the children to an arch on the beach, which is used as a wardrobe every Saturday."
  He had quoted at some length from this article, because he considered it ought to be a sort of gospel for policemen and officers and even for Ministers who were ultimately responsible. He thought the whole police system of Ireland was wrong, vicious, and demoralising, and the same vice ran through the whole criminal code. The Irish Criminal Code, instead of preventing crime, created and put a premium upon crime. In Ireland the system bribed the policemen to manufacture crime. He could never forget the convincing story told by the Leader of the Irish Party of how the Irish police mutilated cattle, sent threatening letters and
  1102
  committed other crimes, and afterwards brought innocent men into the Court and accused them of those crimes and suborned false witnesses. That was only part and parcel of the abominable system which England maintained and perpetuated in Ireland. He hoped that on this occasion the Chief Secretary would not treat them to the usual explanations which in the past had been given from the Treasury Bench. What they wanted in Ireland was a man who would reform the whole rotten system, root and branch, and the man who tried to butter up the present system had better pack up his portmanteau and clear out. The police tax as administered at the present time in Dublin was really illegal. The Act of Vic. 1, c. 25, did not justify the levy which was made. There was a surplus every year hidden away, and nobody knew how it was appropriated. How was that £50,000 a year, of which no record was given, spent? What was done with it? There were secret methods and they wanted to get to the bottom of the secrecy. The only effective remedy would be to localise and decentralise the system and place the police under the control of municipal authorities and county councils, who would see that they extracted some value out of the police instead of allowing them to lounge about the whole day doing nothing.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he felt sure that before the debate came to a close they would have a speech from the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party, because this was a matter which affected his constituency very considerably; and if he would refer to the Dublin newspapers of yesterday he would find that strong resolutions were adopted in many of the urban district councils of South Dublin calling upon the Government to inquire into the present position of the police and bring relief to the rate-payers. He had in his hand a resolution adopted by the Black rock, the Rath-mines, and the Dalkey District Councils which were composed of Unionists and Nationalists, a fact which would go to prove that in this matter there was considerable unanimity in Ireland. This was a matter which affected not merely Nationalists but the ratepayers at large,

  1103
  who urged the Chief Secretary to inquire into the matter and to lose no time in giving some relief to the people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was learning probably for the first time the position which the Dublin Police Force occupied, and he should take particular note of the fact that the question was entirely separate and distinct from the general question of the policing of Ireland. The Constabulary in Ireland were on a totally different footing, and the Dublin Metropolitan Police occupied a different position as well. He might say on behalf of all the Irish Members, or at any rate on behalf of those who had come into contact with the Metropolitan Police, that against that force there was no sort of objection whatever. As far as he knew and as far as his experience went, the police force in Dublin did the work required of them as efficiently as the police of London or any other great city in the world. It was not against the police individually or collectively that any objection was taken, because, as the Lord Mayor of Dublin had just declared, the force was composed of intelligent and respectable men who were anxious to do their duty by their fellow-citizens. The objection was that the forcewas entirely outside the control of the people. The representatives of the people on the Municipal Council of Dublin had no control over the police force, although they were compelled to levy an extremely heavy rate for upkeep. Sometimes they were told that the Irish representatives made unreasonable requests and exaggerated the disabilities from which the Irish people suffered. He would ask any English or Scottish Member if he could conceive a similar state of affairs in reference to the police existing in any other part of the United Kingdom. Here was a great city governed by a municipal council freely elected by the citizens, and yet the representatives of those citizens were denied absolutely any voice whatever in the control of the force which was to keep order in the city, and to see that the life of the people was carried on under ordinary civilised conditions. In England or Scotland such a state of affairs would not be permitted for a single moment. He asked the Chief Secretary to realise what was the cause of a great deal of the discontent of the people. It was that
  1104
  they were treated in an entirely different way from the citizens of the United Kingdom or of any other part of the Empire. Why in the name of goodness should not the citizens of Dublin through their representatives be as well entitled to control, manage, and regulate everything in connection with the police force as the citizens of any Scottish, English, or Welsh town? They were generally told that the Irish people had really nothing to complain of. Hon. Gentleman above the gangway would probably oppose this Motion on the ground that the Nationalist representatives were exaggerating, and that Irishmen were in as good a position in this matter, and in every other matter, as Englishmen and Scotsmen. He would point out to the Chief Secretary that in this particular case the circumstances were entirely different from those prevailing in England and Scotland. As a matter of fact the citizens of Dublin were treated as if they were entirely unworthy of having any responsibility whatever cast upon them, and as if they lacked the ability and the intelligence necessary for the ordinary work of policing their own city. The levy made was the maximum and far in excess of what was necessary, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not possible without any unnecessary delay whatever to alter this and to give relief to the ratepayers of the city and county of Dublin. As the Lord Mayor had just declared, if some action was not taken in this matter by the Government, and if the grievance was not recognised, undoubtedly the day would come when the whole case would be complicated and rendered infinitely more difficult by the action which would be taken by the representatives of the city in the municipal council, who would probably strike against the payment of this tax or the paying of it over to the Government at all. He asked the Chief Secretary in the new spirit which they all believed was abroad with reference to Irish affairs, to obviate any difficulty of that kind and to make a statement which would clearly show to the citizens of Dublin that there would be no necessity for their representatives taking any strong course in the matter, that the grievance was recognised by the Government, and that a remedy

  1105
  would be applied without any loss of time. He would not go into the question of the strength of the force in Dublin, as that had already been dealt with by his hon. friends Certainly when they found that there was really less crime of any sort in proportion to the population than in any other city in the whole Empire—indeed in the whole civilised world—and when they found at the same time that the cost of the police force was infinitely higher in Dublin, he thought every reasonable person must come to the conclusion that something was radically wrong, and that there was urgent need for some change. With regard to the state of the city of Dublin, of ordinary dangerous vicious crime there was an almost entire absence. Any small disturbances that there might be from time to time in the city of Dublin arose perhaps from excess—not so much compared with other cities—in the matter of drink, but leaving that on one side there was an almost entire absence of serious crime. There was no real criminal class, and on the occasion of the Horse Show, and at other times when large numbers of people congregated, they found that in the cases of pocket-picking and other charges of that kind which came before the police court, the persons arrested almost invariably came over specially for the occasion either from Scotland or England. He did not wish in the slightest degree to blame hon. Member from England or Scotland on this point, but he thought it was only fair to say that the conditions were as he had described. They had a police force far greater than was necessary, costing more than any police force in any centre in the world. The people of Dublin and of Ireland generally were as much alive to the necessity of an adequate police force as the people of any other country in the world. They knew that no great centre of population could continue to exist without an adequate force of police. They did not ask for the total abolition of the police force, but that they should not have more than was necessary and that great cost should not be imposed upon them. The root of the whole matter was to be found in the denial of the right of the citizens to manage this affair for themselves. If they were given that right, he was sure they would exercise it with
  1106
  the greatest possible judiciousness and economy, and at the same time with efficiency, because it was the interest of the whole of the citizens to have efficiency. He asked the Chief Secretary to recognise that a genuine case had been made out by the chief magistrate of the city of Dublin and other representatives of Ireland, and to give them some assurance which would convince the citizens of Dublin that there would be no need to go to extremes in the matter, but that at the earliest stage the police force would be put under the control of the representatives of the people, and that in the meantime this altogether unjust and unnecessary burden of taxation would be removed from the shoulders of the people.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said this was a very thorny and difficult question and had been presented with great force. He was very glad to hoar the speech of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. It was rather difficult for a Chief Secretary to deal with a matter of this kind. He had been told by previous speakers that honeyed words or empty promises were not wanted. What was wanted apparently was "a still strong man in a blatant land," who with one sweep of his hand would get rid of this bad system. He was not much of a believer in the "still strong man in the blatant land," for such a man was very apt to be a blatant man in a still strong land. He rather agreed with those who thought that this was a matter which would have to be eventually controlled and worked out by the people of the city of Dublin themselves. There were one or two things to which the attention of the Committee ought to be called. There was no doubt that the Dublin ratepayer did pay a very high police rate, namely, 8d. in the £1 That was larger than the rate paid in London, which was 5d. in the £1. Not only was it a fact that the rate was unusually high, but the ratepayer had no control. It was only fair, however, to point out that in so far as having no control over the police was concerned, the Dublin ratepayer shared that disadvantage with the London ratepayer. The people of the metropolis of London had no control over their police, and that had always been supposed to be due to the metropolitan character of

  1107
  London. He thought it must be admitted that Dublin was a metropolis also, and that consequently that city was entitled to have a large contribution from the Imperial Exchequer for the purpose of maintaining its police. The maximum rate allowed by the London Police Act was ninepence for London, but the rate was relieved by a grant equal to four-pence in the £1 out of the Local Taxation Account. The police rate was thus five-pence in the £1. The total cost of the London Police was roughly £2,200,000, and of this £1,000,000 was raised from the police rate and the balance was derived from the Local Taxation Account, and from local revenue, fines, carriage licences, and the like. In London, therefore, the cost was borne practically in equal proportions between the ratepayers and Imperial sources, and the whole control of the police was vested in the Imperial Parliament. In Dublin the Police Rate was eightpence in the £1; that was a very large rate, but it was only one third of the actual cost of the police. The actual cost was something like £150,000. The other two-thirds of the cost were derived from the Exchequer. As to the question whether Dublin was or was not over-policed, He would hesitate to express an opinion on his own knowledge on a subject of that kind, but he was disposed to think that Dublin was over-policed. He thought there was a larger body of police than was necessary to maintain peace and order in that great city. He was glad to notice that everybody who had spoken had paid a high tribute to the general character and intelligence of the police in Dublin. Of course the police generally were subject to a great deal of criticism in these days, and he was quite ready to admit that the police would always be open to criticism. Gentlemen from Ireland must not suppose that they had a monopoly of criticism in that respect. It was regrettable that the London police had been made a matter of criticism, and it could be said that they were not entirely free from criticism. He was glad that in the view of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland the police of Ireland were an intelligent and nimble body of men. He was sorry that reference had been made to a very unfortunate expression used by a superintendent about "making cases." It was a sinister kind of expression, and he was glad it had attracted criticism, and
  1108
  had been the subject of attack. He did not think it necessary that on an incident of that sort any general imputation should be cast upon the police. Barristers talking about eases, and doctors talking about patients used such jargon of expression which, if it became known among the uninitiated, would give me to a good deal of gloomy thoughts. Surely it was not to be supposed that the expression in question was to be taken in its literal sense as expressing the general habit of the police in manufacturing cases in order to show their activity. This temptation was one to which every policeman and professional man was subject, and so far as he resisted it he was entitled to praise, and so far as he fell a victim to it he should be most seriously blamed. The expression had received grave attention at headquarters, and had been condemned by everybody responsible for the police. Everybody responsible for the police, who knew his duty would be alive to the temptation which existed in any body of men to exceed their duties, and to exhibit their zeal in an unnecessary mid improper manner. The police of Dublin were quite as capable of resisting that temptation as any body of police in any part of the kingdom. Dublin was treated as a metropolis. Its police were not subject to local control any more than the police in London, and the contribution of the Treasury to their maintenance was larger than that in any other part of the United Kingdom. He agreed that it was the duty of the Corporation of Dublin to make representations with reference to the size of the force, and anything the Government could do safely and wisely—and he was disposed to think they could do something in that direction—to reduce the Dublin police force, should be undertaken; and it would be a desirable thing if the Treasury could see their way to make their grant towards the maintenance of the police force a fixed sum, so that the ratepayers of Dublin, who for many years past had been paying this maximum rate of 8d., should have the benefit of any economies that could be effected by means of the reduction of the force. That was the only way whore any reform lay in the reduction of the force. Of course, the the number of the police was a question in which the corporation had no voice, but any representations they could make

  1109
  to the Government showing that in any respect the force could be safely reduced in size, or that the expanses could properly be reduced, would certainly receive the earnest consideration of the Irish Government. So far as the Treasury was concerned, his view was fiat they should be approached with a view to fixing the amount of their grant.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTIasked if the Government would assist the Corporation of Dublin in finding out in what proportion this money was paid away. What was wanted was information to show in what way reductions could be made consistent with the maintenance of order.
  MR. BIREELLsaid that the request of the hon. Gentleman was absolutely reasonable, for no general conclusion could be arrived at as to how the reduction of such a force of men could be effected without a complete knowledge of all the circumstances.
  MR. KETTLEsaid that this was a question relating to the Government of Ireland, and he thought he would carry with him the sympathy of his colleagues when he said that they recognised the difficulty of the problem with which the Chief Secretary was confronted. He did not think that any weight could be given to the comparison between the police force of the city of London and that of the city of Dublin. London was an international metropolis, it was a city apart. Dublin was a national capital. London had to deal with its own problem, just as Dublin had to deal with its. As to the Imperial grant-in-aid for the maintenance of the police, it must be borne in mind that it flowed first into the Exchequer from the taxpayers of Ireland. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to remember that, when he came with a new spirit to the administration of the government of Ireland. Something had been said as to the history and character of the police force in Dublin. It was constituted in its present form in 1846, and its whole history since tended to show, not only that it was an Imperial and not a municipal concern, but that it was also really a branch of the Military Department, and ought properly to be placed on the Army Estimates. He did not think ii was insignificant to note in this con-
  1110
  nection that the present head of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the chief inspector were retired soldiers. He thought the right hon. Gentleman himself had reason to feel uncomfortable in regard to his conduct of this extraordinary force, and that from his own point of view, as well as from that of Nationalist Members, he ought to see that something was done to put the matter on a better basis. As he had said there was no comparison between the city of London and a city like Dublin, and any attempt to make one must necessarily be fallacious. He would, therefore, for the purpose of comparison, take the case of the city of Sheffield and compare it with that of Dublin. He had the figures prepared by the Corporation of Dublin to support the protest which they were were now making and had made for many years past, against this indefensible system. The population of Dublin was, roughly speaking, 390,000, and the population of Sheffield was 480,000, so that there were more people in Sheffield than in Dublin. For the purposes of comparison, however, the numbers might be taken as being about the same. He did not think that any Member of the House would maintain that Sheffield was a more peaceable and law-abiding city than the city of Dublin; yet for Dublin the cost of the police was, at the lowest estimate, between £120,000 and £140,000, while in Sheffield it was between,£55,000 and £60,000. The cost of the police in Dublin, however, was understated by his hon. friend the Member for North Meath, who said the total cost for the present year was £151,440;but, as a matter of fact, his hon. friend had omitted to include an item of £14,000, and the cost of the police force including the sum received from local contributions and grants in aid amounted to practically £170,000. Therefore, it worked out in this way: the cost of the police force in Sheffield being between £55,000 and £60,000, that amount was about one third of what it cost to maintain the police establishment in Dublin. Let him put the case in another way, and say that, if the Imperial contributions to the Dublin police force were swept away, they would find that the local contributions to it were equal to, if not in excess of, the cost of the police of the city of Sheffield. Then again, let the Committee consider the question of the source from which the local revenue of the Dublin

  1111
  police came. It was derived from a statutory tax not imposed by the Dublin Corporation in dealing with the interests of the citizens, but imposed by statute to the extent of eightpence in the pound upon the valuation. In spite of the many reverses with which they had to deal Dublin did not stand still but progressed; but, however much Dublin progressed from the point of view of valuation, the police force remained fixed at the same number, while the sum available for them was, by the increase of the valuation, very largely added to. He should say that within the last fifty years the valuation of Dublin, although He had not the precise figure, had risen by at least £300,000, and upon every single pound of that sum the citizens had been paying eightpence for the upkeep of the police. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had caught the full significance of the figures which had boon brought to his attention by his right hon. friend the Lord Mayor of Dublin. On the previous day, at a meeting of the Blackrock Urban District Council, the district of Blackrock being involved in this expenditure for the Dublin police, it had been said that the Council had written to the officials, not to protest against the tax, not to make any objection to it, but simply to ask for some explanation as to the principle upon which the local contribution of £54,000 was demanded and spent. As He was informed, the responsible officials of the Irish Government wrote back declining to give one single figure. He thought he was justified in interpreting the previous observations of the Chief Secretary to mean that He would give an undertaking that the officials of Dublin Castle should not in futurebe permitted to return a reply of that character to the representatives of so important a district as Blackrock. As he had said, the amount raised by local taxation was derived from this statutory and unchangeable rate of eightpencein the pound on the valuation, and it appeared to be as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians which altered not. He found from last year's report of the Dublin Metropolitan Police that they received money from other sources than those he had mentioned. It was a very small income, it was true; still it was an income. For instance, it was reported that two sovereigns were received by drivers of hackney carriages in mistake for silver coins, and no less a
  1112
  sum than £8 1s. 5d. was found in hackney carriages and surrendered to the police. So far as he knew, the police, with their characteristic habit of clinging to money, had not surrendered these amounts to anybody else. If the Committee would do a very simple sum they would find that the average salary of the Dublin police worked out at £120 to £125 a year, a salary which was handsome compared with that received by persons in other branches of the Government service—men who had to pass a stiff examination, such as principals of national schools. Again, if the Estimates were looked over, the Committee would find that the Vote for the maintenance of the force was not only to maintain the actual and active force, but a great part of it was devoted to retired members of the force. Thus, they had two Commissioners on the activelist and two Commissioners on the retired list; there were seven superintendents on the active list and nine on the retired list; there were twenty-four inspectors on the active list and forty-three on the retired list; so that there were more superintendents and inspectors on the retired than on the active list. If the ages of the retirement of these people were looked into it would be found that the average age of retirement was fifty three, and sometimes they retired on a salary of nearly £300—to be exact, £266 13s. 4d. Retiring at that age, and with such an income, there was nothing to prevent these men reading for a professorial chair. So far as he knew, the large number of police in the streets of Dublin was to restrain and suppress the riot and disorder created by the students of Trinity College, Dublin. That was the only justification he could see for the maintenance of this force. He hoped, however, a new spirit was penetrating every department of life in Ireland, and he trusted that even the students would put off the old Adam and make it possible to have a smaller police force. Another question to which he wished to call attention was the allowances made to the police force in addition to their full salary. This referred to the men in the G Division, humorously described as the detective division. These allowances were, in his opinion, excessive. In conclusion he would recapitulate the points which he had raised. The most significant one was that this force was

  1113
  entirely removed from the control of the citizens of Dublin, and they did not know whose control it was under or who was responsible for it. Secondly, if the cost was compared with that of a city which was not less criminal, say Sheffield, they found that the latter was a third or a quarter of the cost of the Dublin police. Some remarks had been made about the conduct and personnel of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and to a large extent he agreed with those remarks. These men word the victims rather than the creatures of this evil system, and he thought the Dublin police very respectable and, when they went into the witness-box, very sober citizens. What he complained of was the system under which the members of the force became intimidated or demoralised. Let the Committee take, for instance, a circular which had been issued by the officials, he had no doubt with a sinister motive, calling for a Return of the number of members of the force who had not during the preceding three months made five arrests. The significance of that circular was that any policeman who failed to make or to manufacture at least five charges in three months was in disgrace. If that was not what the circular meant He did not know what it did moan. The fact was the police of the city of Dublin were merely ornamental and, for practical purposes, useless. This, with other abuses, must be swept away, and the principle should be laid down that the people of Ireland should be trusted and not distrusted. The military character of the force should be eliminated, and the police placed under the control of the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of Dublin.
  Question put, and negatived. Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £24,568, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  MR. DELANYsaid he rose to move the reduc-
  1114
  tion of the Vote by,£100 in order to call attention to the conduct of the Board of Works in regard to several matters. First of all, he had to complain of the constitution of the board secondly, of its inefficiency; and, thirdly, of the way in which it dealt with its employees. The board consisted of three members, the chairman receiving a salary of £1,500 a year, and the two Commissioners £1,200 each, while the secretary also received a substantial salary, lie did not know that these gentlemen had any special qualifications for the posts they held, and he hoped the Government would inform them what their qualifications were. He did not know of any qualifications being possessed by the chairman except that he happened to be the brother of the, Treasury Remembrancer, while another member of the board was an importation from this country who had been "dumped down" in Dublin, and no doubt left his country for his country's good. The qualification of one of the Commissioners was that he happened to be private secretary to the right hon. Member for Dover when He was Chief Secretary for Ireland. Of course he knew it was the privilege of private secretaries of Ministers to be placed in fat positions in Ireland, but he objected to it. The Board of Works was a purely nominated body, non-Irish in its sympathies, wholly irresponsible, and beyond the control of the Irish Government. There was positively no body in Ireland that could call the Board of Works to account. The Chief Secretary himself had no control over it, nor had any other Irish authority, and the board was represented in the House by a junior member of the Government, who declined to answer Questions on this or any other subject. The Estimates provided for this extraordinary board a sum of £40,568, an increase of £630 over last year. Duties had been entrusted to this body of the most important and far-reaching character, including the maintenance and erection of piers and harbours, Government buildings, and other public works, the care of public parks, arterial drainage, the administration of the Labourers Acts, and the preservation of ancient monuments. The fishing industry was of far-reaching importance to Ireland, but it was languishing, and those engaged in it were half starved and carried their lives in

  1115
  their hands while getting in and out of harbour. Those who visited Clew Bay would see that Mulranny Pier could be approached neither from the land nor from the sea by the fishermen; and the same sort of thing might be seen all round the coast of Ireland, north, south, east, and west. The harbours and piers were standing monuments of the blundering incapacity of the Board of Works. He had mentioned Mulranny Pier, but they had only to go to Arklow, Wicklow, and Greystones, and all round the coast, to see the evidence of failure on the part of the Board of Works. Arklow and the harbours he had mentioned were silting up. No vessel of any size could enter or leave them except at certain states of the tide, and then only with great risk. The piers were crumbling into the sea; and all this was through the pig-headed attitude of the Board of Works. Money had been laid out on those harbours, but without reference to local opinion. It was this disregard of local opinion in reference to local wants which made the people of Ireland despair. The Department consulted experts, made measurements, and obtained estimates and plans, but it omitted to do the one thing essential, and that was to consult the local fishermen, who were acquainted with every turn of the tide, and knew where they wanted protection and where a pier ought to be erected. Then with regard to the question of arterial drainage. There had been a report of the Commission on Arterial Drainage; it had been signed unanimously by the members of the Commission, who wound up by saying that they endorsed what had been stated by previous Commissions, one a Royal Commission, that the state of the rivers and waterways of Ireland was deplorable. Hon. Members from Ulster knew about the Bann. His own interest in the Bann was this. Whenever the Barrow drainage was mentioned, the question of the Bann was always introduced as a bone of contention, or drawn as a red herring across the scent. So far as he was concerned he had not the slightest objection to the land around the Bann being drained; he would like to see it as dry as the floor of the House of Commons; but he objected to the name of the Bann being introduced when the
  1116
  interests of Barrow drainage were being discussed, as a reason for not carrying out the Barrow works. He did not want to see the Battle of the Boyne fought over again between the Bann and the Barrow. There had been £150,000 laid out upon the Bann, and, as far as his information went, the money might as well have been thrown into Lough Neagh, so far as any benefit had accrued from the expenditure. They meant to persevere in their demand for a Barrow drainage scheme which the Commission had pointed out was reasonable, and they meant to see whether the position could not be improved with State assistance. But there was one thing remarkable about the district of the Barrow, and it was that the people there steadfastly refused that a single sixpence I of the money to be granted should be laid out by the Board of Works. They had at present a machinery in the local county councils, who could carry out the work satisfactorily and in a manner that would meet the views of those in whose interest the work was undertaken and who would have to pay a large portion of the cost. Then there was the question of the schools. The hon. Member for East Mayo had been asking questions for the last two years as to the plans for schools, and the reply had been that the plans were not yet complete. It meant that plans of only ordinary schools were required, plans such as a local architect would get out in twenty-four hours; yet it had taken the Board of Works two years, and the plans were not yet forthcoming, though the money had been granted. The clashing of authority between different Boards was quite extraordinary. There was a case in Clare where the Board of Works claimed the right to lay out certain money; another Department claimed an equal right, and so, in presence of this cat and dog existence, the work was not carried out. With regard to ancient monuments they had fallen on bad times when they were handed over to the tender mercies of the Board of Works. These ancient monuments were relics which the Irish people regarded with pride and veneration. They were indications of the culture and civilisation which existed in their country many centuries ago, when

  1117
  England was merely emerging from the darkness of barbarism, and when Birmingham was only a squalid village. He now came to the last phase of the subject. He had put questions to the Secretary to the Treasury, who had not answered some of them, and it was not in his power to force the hon. Gentleman to give replies. The questions were as to the religious creeds of the staff. He had been informed that the Board of Works never asked about the creed of members of the staff. Oh, no; no one knew anything about the religion of anyone else in a Government Department in Ireland. He had some facts and figures to which he would direct the attention of the Committee. It showed something about the general working of the Board of Works in respect of its dealing with the staff. In the first place, in the Boards of Works, of which Mr. Henry Williams was Secretary and the ruling spirit, the number of nominated appointments filled by Catholics was fifty, and their salaries amounted to £9,793. The number of nominated appointments filled by members of other denominations was eighty-four, and their salaries amounted to £26,609. The nominated appointments were in the hands of the Secretary, Mr. Williams, and his triumvirate, and of course, they were told that these gentlemen knew nothing whatever about creeds. If they took the question of open competition and appointments on merit, they found that the Catholics took about two-thirds of the posts and more than half the salaries. In regard to appointments by open competition the Catholics held thirty-seven places, the salaries of which amounted to £6,712, whilst other denominations held twenty-three places, the total of which amounted to £6,465. That was a clear indication that the nominated appointments were made not by merit but by favouritism. Religion ought to be set aside in all these matters, but they could not close their eyes to facts and figures of this kind when they saw their countrymen being deprived of their rightful share of these positions. He would not be doing justice to his fellow countrymen if he did not demand that they should get their fair share of appointments under the Board. In the case of nominated appointments the average Catholic salary
  1118
  was £189, whilst the non-Catholic salary averaged £309. The manner in which the Board dealt with Catholics in Dublin was notorious. If a member of the Catholic body holding a position under the Board happened to be ill and was laid up, an old pensioner was despatched to see whether he was malingering or telling untruths. On the other hand, if a member of another denomination said he was ill no such inquiries would be made, and he might whilst off duty go to Phoenix Park or attend the races, and nothing would be said about it. That kind of thing was well known in Dublin, and He did not need to press the matter further. Whilst this Board would not allow a piece of ground for the Gaelic Football Club or the Gaelic League, they were quite willing to set apart thirty acres of the most beautiful part of Phoenix Park to be used by the Polo Club. The figures he had given were incontestable and could not be denied. This autocratic non-representative body was not satisfied with the large nominating power it now possessed, and they had applied to the Civil Service Commissioners for extended powers. He wished to enter his protest against the penalising of any official who might have given information to a Member of Parliament. It would be a horrible state of things if this intimidating of the staff was allowed to be continued without being exposed. What were the facts? No sooner did the information he alluded to reach the public than a threatening note was posted up in the Board of Works Offices in the following terms—
  "It has been observed by the Board that an article concerning promotion in this Department appeared in two Dublin newspapers on Thursday and Friday last.
  ''So far as this article relates to matters of public knowledge the Board are not concerned. It contained, however, certain statements which were based upon information that could only have been furnished directly or indirectly by persons within the office. It will therefore be necessary for the Secretary to bring again to the notice of all Divisions the stringent Treasury Circular on the subject of giving information to the Press.
  "The communication referred to is calculated, as the Board think most undeservedly, to cast a stigma on the staff, but they wish to take this opportunity of stating that they have every confidence in the loyalty of the officials of the Department, and they feel sure that the latter will share their great regret that there should be any individual or individuals among them who should have proved themselves

  1119
  untrue to the rules and traditions of the public service."
  That Board would become another Chamber of Horrors and nothing would be allowed to come out of it if hon. Members of this House were not permitted to receive the information which was necessary to expose this notorious Board. They had no less than sixty-seven Boards in Ireland, and the late Mr. Davitt used to call them the forty thieves, although he under-estimated their number at the time. There were now sixty-seven Boards in Ireland and therefore there must be sixty-seven thieves, and the Board of Works was the worst. So bad was the system that it was past mending, and for the sake of administration and civil and religious liberty in Ireland the Board should be abolished. He moved the reduction of the Vote by;£100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £24,468, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Delany.)
  MR. MOOREdissociated himself from the grossly unfair attack which had been made on the Board of "Works, and, so far as it was based on information which appeared to have been purloined from a Government office by a clerk in its employment, he disclaimed all sympathy with it. He hoped this kind of leakage would be discovered and punished as severely as the rules of any healthy Civil Service demanded. It was intolerable that there should be prying into these matters for the purpose of advancing a man's personal interests and making through Parliament or the Press or otherwise unworthy or cowardly attacks on his superiors. He hoped it would be discovered who had done this, and the Secretary to the Treasury would have the most cordial support of his hon. friends in maintaining the honourable traditions of the Civil Service, which ought to be carried out in Ireland in the same way as in England. His experience of the Board of Works was that they were not infallible. That had never been claimed for them, and he did not feel called upon to defend them. He assumed that the Ministry under which they were at present serving would see that justice was done to them. He knew from per-
  1120
  sonal experience that the Board of Works had an exceedingly able and obliging staff of inspectors, who went through the country making advances for the improvement of the land. He did not think that any man who had had dealings with the Board of Works had any reasonable complaint to make. He certainly thought that the Government should take one matter into consideration, viz., the enabling of the Board to make smaller loans than they could do at present. He understood that at present they could not advance less than £50. That was measured by a certain number of years rental of the farm on which the improvement was to be made. Many small holders would often be glad to avail themselves of smaller loans—say £35—but the Board had no authority to make such advances. If they could not do it as the law stood it was a matter for which they could not be blamed the hon. Member had complained of favouritism and bigotry of the Board of Works, and said that these complaints were common property in Dublin. If that were so, they were common to a particular class, and he could not say that he shared in them. He wished again to call attention to the Bann Drainage question which had been pressed on the attention of the Government for many years. The counties on the seaboard had had a great deal done for them in the way of piers and grants. He and his friends were not grudging that expenditure, which had amounted to about £400,000. But the Bann stood out from what might be called these marine questions. The question of the Bann affected five inland counties. While places on the seaboard had had their share of money—he did not say that they had had enough yet—those inland counties, which were all vitally affected by the flooding of the Bann, had not yet received adequate consideration. The money already found for the draining of the Bann had been found through Imperial credit which was only possible under the present Constitution, and would be impossible if they ever arrived at separation. That money was found in the days before the internal drainage of the country was so largely developed, as it had been in the last two generations. Formerly the Bann was adequate to bring down drainage from the whole watershed, but now the same

  1121
  quantity of water reached the river in twenty-four hours, whereas formerly it took a week or ten days. He was not suggesting that the original works were completely adequate, and, as a matter of fact, the original design for the Bann had never been carried out. What had been done for the Bann in the past had been done by borrowed money, and every penny had since been repaid by the people who got the benefit in their districts, and they were still paying maintenance charges. There had been no loss to the Treasury for any sum expended on the Bann. He recognised that this question was in a sense sub judice at present, because since the last Bill dealing with the matter—a Bill which passed the Second Reading, but failed to pass through Committee—there had been two different inquiries and reports as to the state of affairs. The first of these reports proposed an expenditure of£150,000, of which £100,000 had to be subscribed locally. That was an absolute bar to the scheme, because only the people interested would consent to raise the money, and it was impossible for them to raise so much. His right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin when Chief Secretary, sent down Sir Alexander Binnie, a distinguished engineer, who reported on the state of the lough and the river in 1905. He estimated the cost at £75,000—just half of the previous estimate. He understood that the present Government were prepared to deal with the question when fuller inquiry had been made. He admitted that the pledge given was a general one, and he did not wish to push it further than that. During the last six months inspectors, on behalf of the Board of Works, had been through the district making a valuation of the lands, extending to sixty miles of territory which would be benefited by the drainage operations. He wished to ask in no controversial spirit if these inquiries had terminated and what had been the result. He wished also to know if the Government were now in a position to say what action they proposed to take. He and his friends were quite prepared to wait a reasonable time in order that the Government might make 1 all necessary inquiry into the matter. The population in the districts concerned was growing, and he was sure that the
  1122
  Government would not minimise the importance of the matter.
  MR. O'DOWDsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to think that they wanted information about the Board of Works. What was wanted was criticism of the Board. They had got enough information. He was one of those individuals who whether as a Nationalist fighting for the Nationalist cause on the hillsides, or in addressing meetings in England, had never made creed or class a question in discussing Irish government. He and his friends did not believe in introducing either Protestantism or Catholicism. They believed that Irishmen should have a full share in the government of their own country, and he hoped that the course of events in the near future would result in the realisation of this view. He did not wish to criticise any official connected with the Board of Works. His object in rising was to deal with the Board of Works as at present constituted, and as one of the numerous Departments which misgoverned Ireland. He made no attack upon any official, but he did say that the Board of Works had failed to discharge the duties and the functions for which it was supposed to exist. The Board of Works was connected with almost all the public works in Ireland. If a national school house was to be erected a Board of Works inspector came down to inspect it. If there was a local drainage scheme to be carried out, a Board of Works Inspector would come down and run the whole concern. If a poor farmer in the North, East, West, or South of Ireland wanted to borrow money to improve his farm—say £100—according to the rules of the Board of Works the money was lent to him to be paid back by instalments as the work proceeded. Very good It was a matter of life and death to the small farmer that he should carry out his improvements, and pay regularly the instalments of the loan, principal,* and interest, within a certain number of years. The inspector of the Board of Works came down with his monocle in his eye, and, supposing the farmer who had spent the whole of his life in doing the best for his land, could not pay his instalment at the moment, this monocled inspector would say, "This instalment

  1123
  must be paid immediately and not indefinitely postponed." Personally, he had never found fault in the House with the officials of any Department. He only found fault with the Department itself. A local contractor tendered for the erection of a National school for a certain amount of money. He might be a poor man without capital, but his brother might be a smith and his son a carpenter, and he undertook the erection of the school-house under the supervision of the inspector of the Board of Works, provided he got periodical payments as the work proceeded. The Board of Works inspector came down, and found some technical objection to a part of the job, and refused to grant a certificate for the money to the poor contractor. All these things were, however, minor matters compared with arterial drainage. In that regard he would remind the Committee that the Unionist Member for Armagh held exactly the same views as those to which he had given expression, when he said on May 24th, 1905, that Ireland was dominated by the incapacity of the Board of Works. He was at one with his hon. friend above the gangway. Could he be blamed, therefore, for putting in a word in favour of the drainage of the Oranmore river, which was not a navigable river but one the drainage of the basin of which affected 8,000 farmers? He spoke in regard to this question on behalf not only of the Nationalists, but of the Unionists and clergy of all denominations in the County of Sligo. He maintained that considerable drainage works would have long ago been done in the West of Ireland if the Board of Works had been efficient. He hoped the Government would devote more attention not to the great navigable rivers, but to the smaller rivers of the West of Ireland.
  MR. HUGH LAWmade reference to a dredger which had been provided under the provisions of the Marine Works Act of 1902, and asked what had been done with it. A number of harbours in Ireland were practically useless for traffic and trade owing to the silting up of sand. In his own constituency there were three harbours of this kind. The question of dredging had been mooted and had been the subject of correspondence between the local authorities and the Irish Government for four
  1124
  or five years, and he would like to know what was the state of the arrangements in regard to this dredger.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEthought that all the rivers ought to be drained, no matter in what part of Ireland they happened to be; but while everybody agreed that large districts ought to be drained, that operation was never performed, and apparently the rivers were never going to be drained. They had had seven or eight Commissions upon arterial drainage in Ireland, and yet a Commission was sitting now. Former Commissions had had no result, and he wondered whether the one now sitting would bring forth anything which would lead to action. This Vote was a very important one, as it raised many questions of interest, and he wanted both to ask for information and to criticise it. At present it appeared to him that the Board of Works in Ireland represented the English Treasury, and therefore Irish Nationalists had a great objection to the Vote. If however, the Board of Works represented the Irish Treasury hon. Members for Ireland would not object to it. So much by way of prelude, but he wished to call attention to the question of the preservation of ancient monuments, which to his mind was one of extreme importance. One of his hon. friends was not satisfied with the way in which the Board of Works had taken charge of ancient Irish monuments. He did not agree with that view; he thought that the manner in which the Board of Works had looked after certain Irish monuments was creditable and that they had done a great deal of good work. The only complaint made was that the Board of Works did not extend its sphere of usefulness and deal with a larger number of monuments. He would be glad if the Chief Secretary would find out for him how many ancient monuments had been vested in the Board of Works since the passing of the Act of 1903, and whether there existed any regular means of communication between the Estates Commissioners and the Board of Works, so that whenever a statue was deemed by local antiquaries to be worthy of preservation, steps could at once be taken in that direction. He thought they should follow the example of other countries which showed an admirable

  1125
  spirit in those matters. In certain parts of the country there wore periodical invasions of tourists, and care should be taken to protect those monuments from injury. Then as to loans, he thought that the powers of the Board were too restricted, and that the Chief Secretary might well consider whether a smaller advance than £50 could be made, say £25. The latter sum would he a very useful loan. He thought the rate of interest, five or six per cent., was too heavy and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not give people who borrowed through this Department the advantages which were given to other people. Again, there was the question of inspectors appointed by the Board. There were only ten or twelve of these gentlemen. They were appointed some twenty or thirty years ago under conditions which had since been modified. Since then other inspectors had been appointed who did nothing like the work which the older inspectors did and had been put under better conditions as regards pay and pension. He asked if something could not be done to better the conditions as regarded the pensions of the ten or twelve inspectors originally appointed, having regard to their long service. With regard to school grants, he 1 asked whether the hon. Member could say when certain schools in his constituency, the preparation for building which was commenced four years ago, would be completed. He hoped the assurances given by the Chief Secretary some time ago would be carried out and this matter brought to an early conclusion. These schools were urgently needed, and it was not creditable to the authorities that so long a time should He allowed to elapse between the preparations to commence them and their completion. With regard to the question of fishing piers, it was interesting to recall the fact that the history of the Marine Works Act was that it was given to Ireland as a piece of great generosity; but the English had intercepted certain funds devoted to marine works in Ireland, and eventually of those funds, £100,000 was handed over for the purpose of building these piers and other marine works. How far had these funds been mortgaged or had they entirely disappeared, and how soon would the money be available for marine works
  1126
  and fishing piers in different parts of Ireland? The operation of the Marine Works Act should be extended, and, in view of the benefits which had accrued whore it had been put into force, other districts should enjoy the same benefits. Would the hon. Member ascertain from the Board of Works whether they had any idea of the amount that would be required to construct marine works in the congested districts of Ireland and outside those districts where such works were required? There was one harbour in which he was particularly interested, and with regard to which He would like to have the information as soon as possible. Whenever the question of fishing harbours came up Greystones had a large claim for consideration, because of the large sums spent by Greystones upon the harbour, which unfortunately, had not been a success. He would also like to know how the Board of Works and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland were getting on, and whether they had settled the differences of opinion that had arisen between them with regard to certain marine works, and particularly with regard to Arklow harbour, and whether the works there would shortly be completed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury)said complaint had been made by the hon. Member who moved the reduction that this Department was represented by him. He assured him that his regret on that head was no greater than his own. He was extremely sorry that he should have anything to do with the government of Ireland under the present conditions. They were, however, in hopes that alterations would be made shortly in that respect. This particularly applied to the Office of Works, because it covered such a very wide field, and when they attempted to find anything analagous to it in England they found that the Office of Works dealt with matters which in England were under the Commissioners of Works, the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade (the management of railways and soon), with matters controlled by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and with a hundred and one other matters which in England were controlled by a hundred and one other bodies. Therefore, it was impossible for

  1127
  an Englishman with a short experience to have a knowledge of anything like all the questions that he had been asked on this occasion. He would try, however, to answer one or two of them as far as he could. As to work done in regard to ancient monuments since 1903, he could give no information off hand, but if the hon. Baronet would put a Question on the Paper he would give him all the information he could obtain upon the subject. With regard to loans, it had been suggested that they should be reduced from £50 to £25. He had been informed that the loans were now as low as £35 and that this was done by a Treasury Warrant. He would see what could be done, but it did not seem to him that the amount of benefit that would accrue from making the loan £10 lower would be very great. The hon. Member had also asked whether a larger amount could be advanced to farmers. That was a matter he would have to consider further. The hon. Member for Donegal had asked about the dredger. He would point out to him that it was the property of the Local Government Board, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to have it sent down to Donegal he would advise him to approach the Board in that regard. Donegal was not the only county in Ireland which would like to have the assistance of a dredger.
  MR. HUGH LAWsaid he was not so anxious to have the Board of Works dredger, but a dredger. As he understood, there had been a triangular negotiation going on between the Board of Works, the Congested Districts Board, and the county council, and he was anxious on that account to know if the hon. Gentleman could give any information.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid there was only one dredger, and that was at the disposal of any local authority, and if they would kindly let him know what dredging was going on, he would certainly do his best to facilitate the work. Reference had been made to the amount of money spent under the Marine Works Act. He could not exactly state what that sum was, but no doubt hon. Members would be satisfied if the amounts were stated in the form of a Return; He had also been asked some questions about Grey stones pier, or rather
  1128
  what remained of it. The pier was of zig-zag shape, and was on all sorts of levels; it was of comparatively little use. He was not quite sure that the money had been spent wisely in building the pier, for there were other parts of Ireland which had as great a claim, and where the Government could have spent the money to better advantage. At all events, the pier was in a lamentable condition, and before he could say any thing as to the future he would have to make inquiries of the authorities and advisers of the Board on the subject. With regard to Arklow, all the necessary formalities had been gone through and completed, and he hoped that the work would be pressed toward without any delay. As to Wicklow, the Board of Works were not responsible, for they had been practically told "hands off." He had also been asked as to whether plans for schools had reached anything like the final stage. His right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had announced some time ago that negotiations had proceeded between the National Board and his own office, and the Treasury had now come to the conclusion that they ought to arrange for new plans to be designed on a basis much more generous than was allowed in either England or Scotland. He was sure that hon. Members from Ireland could not ask for more than that. The claim which had always been put forward was that there should be ten square feet per child on the mean between the average attendance and the number on the roll for each specific school. So far as that was concerned they had now reached a settlement, and there ought to be no delay. He had been asked why the Board of Works did not allow more football grounds in phœnix Park. He was informed that there were no less than thirty-two football grounds allotted by the Board of Works, and he did not know many towns of the size of Dublin which had thirty-two public football grounds allotted by the public authorities. The story of the Bann was a very old one, but before proceeding with that matter he would remind hon. Members that very large sums of Imperial money had been spent on arterial drainage. The whole question of the drainage of the centre of Ireland was a very important one, and was by no means limited to the land which lay

  1129
  about the Bann. He was in Ireland some time ago with his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board. They saw something of the condition of the centre of Ireland, and the knowledge then gained had been supplemented by much information gained by the Irish Office on this side of the water. That information pointed to the conclusion that unless' something like £5,000,000 was spent on the internal drainage of Ireland, that country would never be thoroughly drained. Five millions was a very large sum, but doubtless the benefits of such a scheme might more than recoup them for a large part of the expenditure. But on such a big question as that, involving a sum of £5,000,000 or any large sum, it would be quite improper to commit the Government. The Bann, however, had one of the first claims on any sum that was to be spent. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Barrow?] It was impossible for them to decide as to whether the Bann or the Barrow would come first. What had to be done must be done with public money, and at very great expense. This was really a matter that must be dealt with along with others, and he could make no announcement on the subject of the drainage of the Bann except to say that the scheme which had boon put forward had received, and was receiving, very serious consideration, and if it would bear criticism he had no doubt that something might be done upon it.
  MR. MOORE: Has the local inquiry been concluded?
  MR. RUNCIMANbelieved that the local inspection by those who were testing the scheme on the spot had been concluded, but the whole matter was coming under the consideration of the Government. The hon. Member for Queen's County, Ossory, had made some reference to the Board of Works. He only wished the hon. Member had kept out of his speech the name of the distinguished gentleman who was at the head of the Board. However much the hon. Gentleman might dislike him he thought it would be as well in criticising the Board that he should follow the example of one of his hon. friends by criticising the Board as a whole, without criticising particular
  1130
  officials in it. Sir George Holmes had been on the Board of Works for some five or six years and had worked with the greatest energy. Possibly, during the whole of that time, he might have done some things which had not mot with the approval of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. There were few public officials but at one time or another met with the censure of hon. Members, on one side of the House or the other, representing local interests. Sir George Holmes had dealt faithfully and well with the interests of the Board, and all he could say in his behalf at the present time would be quire inadequate as any return for his public services. The hon. Gentleman had made reference to a Question which he had put the other day, and which he (Mr. Runciman) had declined to answer. His reply was shortly this, that in regard to Sir G. Holmes the Question was based on information which was absolutely groundless, and that, as the hon. Gentleman had asked similar Questions on several occasions, he thought it only right, in defence of officials who wore attacked, to say that he deprecated those Questions, and that He thought it most derogatory to the dignity and the honour of those officials that he should have to get uptime after time to say that there was no ground for the accusation made against them. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with him that He was at all times ready to give proper information, and if the hon. Member's Questions were not couched in a form which was really intolerable to those who were serving the public interest, he would be very glad to give all the information he could. The hon. Gentleman had made reference to a letter which he said was received by the Board of Works from the Civil Service Commissioners with reference to the religious beliefs of the staff of the Board of Works. This also had boon the subject of a Question by the hon. Member, and he had told him at the time that no such letter had been received, for the simple reason that the Civil Service Commissioners had never written such a letter. Whatever might be said of them, He ventured to think that the Commissioners took no part whatever in Irish politics, and he was assured by a member of the staff of the Civil Service Commission that no such letter ever was written, nor, so far as he could gather, had such a letter

  1131
  been sent from any other Department of the State. As to the notice which had been circulated in reference to information which had leaked out from time to time on matters concerning the staff, that notice was not peculiar to Ireland; they sometimes had them in England, for the very good reason that those who were serving the public interest must be well aware that any disclosure of what passed in their office was a very grave breach of confidence; and he thought that hon. Gentlemen must see really how improper it would be that communications of a confidential nature passing from one department to another, should become public. If such a thing were allowed to take place it would be impossible to conduct any public department with any sense of security. He did not suggest for a moment that anything improper passed between these two departments. He did not think that anything did; and he doubted that the disclosures would have done any harm to anyone. But he wanted to point out that correspondence pissing between one department and another must be secret. Distinguished servants of the State, who had gone through every department both in England and abroad, would be the first to acknowledge that this was a rule that could not: be departed from, and that any notice which maintained that standard was one which ought to be observed by the staff. The hon. Gentleman had made an allegation against the Board of Works as to the preference given to Protestants in that department. It was always a difficult matter to inquire into the religious belief of those who were serving in a public department. So far as the Catholics were concerned, he would be among the first to deprecate and to punish severely any attempt to handicap them in the public service of Ireland. But he could not say there was any evidence of undue preference of the men of one creed over the men of another. He would like to amplify that. There had been particular accusations against the; Secretary of the Board of Works, who was himself a Protestant. The hon. Gentleman had been good enough to send him some information with regard to the staff of the Board of Works. He had experienced the greatest difficulty in finding out what were the religious beliefs of the staff, and from what he had seen he gathered that there were under
  1132
  Mr. Williams more Catholics than Protestants. He had no means of checking that information. He would venture to suggest that if Mr. Williams was accused of being prejudiced against Catholics, the mere fact that there were more Catholics than Protestants in his office was surely a very good reply.
  MR. DELANYsaid what He had pointed out was that the Catholics had only £9,000 in salaries, while the Protestants had over £26.000.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid there was in the Department mentioned a very large sprinkling of Catholics, so large in fact that in the higher ranks nearly one-half wore Catholics. It was true that if they added up the salaries they would find that those who were Protestants would be earning more than the Catholics, but there were ways of adding up tables which would make the very best things look uncommonly bad. He would like to suggest one explanation of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It so happened that those in the higher ranks were principally Protestants whilst those in the lower ranks were Catholics. The explanation lie would offer of that was that higher education in Ireland had handicapped the Catholics and placed them at a great disadvantage. When Ireland extended University facilities and a large number of Catholics, and not Protestants only, were able to take advantage of University education, no doubt the balance would be restored, and it would be found that education and not religion was the qualification for admitting men into those positions. Nothing was more lamentable in the history of Ireland than the way that country was divided up by two political parties and by two religious beliefs. This was not understandable by those who had spent all their public life in England. He hoped the time was coming when the Irish people would be able to work together without religious difficulties interfering with their public duties. In conclusion he reminded the Committee of the two statements made by Disraeli, who when asked what his religion was, said—
  "My religion is the religion of all sensible men,"

  1133
  and when asked what that was, replied—
  "Sensible men never tell."
  He hoped the time was coming when in the appointment of public servants, whether under the present or a future régime, it would not be necessary to inquire what were the religious beliefs of any of them.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid they all wished the hon. Gentleman every success in his now office, and they fully recognised that he had made every effort to grasp the complicated situation in Ireland with which he had to deal. Quite recently he had had to master all the finance of the Land Act, and they all knew with what success he had achieved that result, and how he was able to answer any question upon that involved subject. The hon. Member had discoursed quite lucidly upon one of the most complicated problems of Irish government, viz., the Board of Works. Evidently the hon. Gentlemen who usually sat above the gangway were satisfied, because they had left the House. The Bann would in their opinion overflow its banks no more, because the hon. Gentleman above the gangway had spoken. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had stated that the Government had inquired into the subject, and were still inquiring, and would continue to inquire, but he (Mr. O'Connor) doubted whether the Bann would be any better for that inquiry. It was his lot two days ago to introduce a subject with whish the Board of Works was very seriously concerned. He referred to the arterial drainage of Ireland. They had heard nothing at all about the competency of this Department to deal with the two important subjects of the building of schools and arterial drainage in Ireland. The subject which had been raised by his hon. friend was the competency or the incompetency of the Board of Works. Not one word had escaped the hon. Gentleman's lips as to whether he was convinced that the Department was capable or incapable of executing those works. The Commissioners of National Education had stated in their very last Report that it would take £500,000 for five years to put them in the position they might have occupied if they had been fairly dealt with for the last four years. But not a stone had been laid and not one act of reparation had been done to those
  1134
  schools, because the Treasury had shut up its pockets and closed its purse. It had been said by the Chief Secretary that £1,000,000 was absolutely necessary to put the schools of Ireland in a proper condition. Was the Board of Works a competent body to expend that money? Instead of granting £500,000 a miserable £40,000 a year for throe years was to be granted. That was a most contemptible sum having regard to the admission that had been made. What he wished the hon. Gentleman to answer was whether the Board of Works, about the competency of which He had said not a single word, was competent to expend £40,000 a year for the next three years. He trusted that the hon. Member would occupy many an onerous office in the present Government. He was now qualifying, in one of the most difficult positions it was possible for even a gentleman of his unbounded industry to occupy, for one of those high positions which his talents entitled him to fill in the future. He knew that the hon. Gentleman had a long and brilliant career before him, and he would go from office to office, and before he had scarcely mastered the details of his present office he would no doubt receive promotion and find himself in the Cabinet. He would not grudge his advancement at all, because he desired that every young man of industry who desired to serve his country in honourable occupations should have the opportunity of doing so. With regard to arterial drainage in Ireland the hon. Member had said that when he looked into this Department he found there had been a very great deal of neglect. They had had placed before them the question of the Bann versus the Barrow. If the Treasury and the Board of Works decided to spend more money on the Bann he desired it and he would not object. The Barrow flowed through his constituency and had done so for the past 100 years without any money being expended upon it. During that period it had overflowed its banks four times a year and not a penny had been spent upon it. The Bann had been thoroughly neglected. Report after report had been issued with regard to it and they had not been acted upon. The question was raised by the predecessor of the hon. Member for North Armagh, the late Colonel Saunderson, who had always supported the Nationalist

  1135
  Party on this question of arterial drainage. On one occasion an engineer was sent down to report upon the Bann. The very next year another complaint was made and another engineer was sent down who also reported. Why were all these reports necessary? Because of the incompetency of the Board of Works. One engineer after another had produced schemes for the drainage of the Bann; they had been presented to the Board of Works, and under that body they had proved total failures. When he moved a Motion upon this subject not very long ago he was told that perhaps another authority could be established for dealing with arterial drainage, and the appointment of a Commission was suggested, and the late Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin jumped at the suggestion. He said, "Let us have another Commission." He did not support that suggestion but the Commsssion was appointed. It was a way of shelving the difficulty. He was invited last year to give evidence before the Commission upstairs. He told Sir Alexander Binnie that he had not supported the appointment of the Commission. He reminded Sir Alexander that he himself had reported on the Bann the year before, and that another engineer had reported on the same subject the year before that. He told him further that the Commission was utterly unneeded, and He produced in support of that statement the Reports which had been presented to Parliament for the last 100 years. The evidence amounted to thousands upon thousands of pages, and he said, "Great Heaven What do you want with another Commission?" They had the Reports of all the Commissions which had taken evidence for the past 100 years, and what was the result? Absolutely no result, except that some money had been spent on the Bann through the influence of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway, money which might as well have been pitched into the Thames for all the good it had done to the Bann. The Bann was in a worse condition today than before a penny was expended upon it. He made that statement on the authority of the Reports to which he referred. They all condemned the schemes carried out by the Board of Works, and that was the Board they were now criticising. It was the
  1136
  Board that would have to carry out the works for the further drainage of the Bann. Hon. Members above the gangway had made their speeches which would be published in the local newspapers, and on the 12th of July they would be cheered because they spoke about the Bann in the House of Commons. The Treasury would still be considering the Report of this Commission, and not a single thing would, be done to give effect to the recommendations. The Financial Secretary had answered all the questions in a perfunctory sort of way, but He had not spoken one word in regard to the Board which the Nationalist Members declared were incompetent to carry out any works with which they might be entrusted. When his hon. friend the Member for the Ossory Division complained of the personnel of the Board he was lectured severely by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.But his hon. friend lived in the district affected by these works, and he knew how the health of the people was injured by the overflowing of the banks. These were the people who would have to bear the cost of the works if carried out, and it was natural that his hon. friend should press his case with as much force and energy as he could employ. The two questions of arterial drainage and education in Ireland had been recognised by the Chief Secretary as calling for attention. In the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman delivered he had dwelt on these important subjects as illustrating the appalling neglect by the British Government of the affairs of Ireland. He read with profit and with hope every utterance of the right hon. Gentleman, whether made in England or in Ireland, and he observed with the keenest delight that He had got a full grasp of the wants of the people of the country. If they could impress upon him and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the position of the Board of Works called for investigation, this debate would not have been in vain. He hoped the debate would not be lost on the Financial Secretary. He was certain it would not be lost on the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and in another year's time he believed they would have another story to tell than the sad one which had been related by his hon. friends.
  MR. DUFFY:said he was glad that this debate had taken place, if

  1137
  only for the purpose of calling the attention of the Liberal Party and of the Ministry to the necessity of doing some thing in the way of enabling the Irish people within a reasonable time to have the management of their own local affairs. The hon. Member for North Armagh had stated that no man in Ireland at present had any reason to complain of the action of the Board of Works in dealing with small farmers who applied for loans to carry out useful improvements. He thought he would be able to satisfy the hon. Member that great difficulties were sometimes thrown in the way of small farmers who applied for loans. He had in his possession a shoal of letters which had passed between a small farmer in his neighbourhood and the Board of Works in the past twelve months. That man acquired his holding under the Ashborne Act and applied for a loan of £55. In due course an engineer was sent down by the Board to make inquiries as to the works proposed to be carried out. The farmer informed the engineer that he intended to carry out the works with the aid of his own children. They had been assisting other farmers, and it occurred to him that the loan might be utilised in paying them wages in carrying out the works which he desired. The engineer reported to the Board of Works what the farmer proposed to do, and the Board declined to give the loan because he wished to carry out the works with the assistance of his own children. He thought that was a monstrous state of things. He himself had taken up the case and represented to the Board of Works that it was very unfair not to make the loan, but the Board insisted that they were justified in refusing it. A short time ago they instituted proceedings against this unfortunate man for applying for the loan, and, a decree having been given against him, he had actually to pay for making the application. That was the most extraordinary thing he had ever heard of in connection with the action of any Board.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LOWER THAMES TUNNEL RAILWAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES).
Postponed Proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £24,468, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which; will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."—(Mr. Delany,)—resumed.
MR. DUFFY,resuming his remarks, asked what had been done by the Board of Works in regard to the port of Kinvara. A sum of £1,100 had been set apart for Kinvara, out of the grant made to the Board of Works to improve the ports of Ireland, while the Board of Agriculture and other Boards had made advances, making altogether about £2,000. But what had been done in improving the harbour since 1902? He understood that the Board of Works had carried out a portion of the work, and undertook to spend the sum of £1,900 on the construction of a pier. They had spent £1,369, but he wanted to know whether they had got value for the money. He had received many inquiries as to whether the rest of the money was to be handed over to the county council to carry out the remainder of the work. When was the Government going to take action with the view of allowing the county council to spend its own money? He was informed that the County Council of Galway had approved of the plans for the improvement of the harbour so long ago as 1905;but he had received complaints from his constituents that nothing had been done in regard to that particular harbour and making it accessible to boats. It was the bounden duty of the Government to step in and insist on the county council spending the money allocated in improving the harbour.
MR. J. P. NANNETTIcalled attention to the wages paid to the men employed in the public parks in Dublin. These men

1139
were only paid from 14s. to 16s. per week, and the rate of living in Dublin was as high as in London, where the men were paid 24s. or more per week. Of course many men in these times were anxious to accept any wage offered in order to keep the wolf from the door.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman that inquiry would be made in regard to the point raised by him. He himself considered that a full-grown man should be paid a living wage.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £24,568, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland," put, and agreed to.
3. £46,411, to complete the sum for Local Government Board, Ireland.
MR. GINNELLsaid that if the Irish Boards were to be radically improved and put under popular control as the Boards in Great Britain were, they in Ireland were willing to address themselves in the future to the practical work of carrying out the improvement of local public works. If they in Ireland had the making and administration of their own lands there would be sufficient work for them to do and they might be able to draw a veil of decency over the putrid corpse of the past. Many hon. Members had not taken the opportunity of expressing an opinion upon this subject, perhaps because of the coming measure which directly related to the Vote before the Committee. He might be permitted to say in a single sentence that the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised, or take it as a reflection upon himself if some in Ireland, remembering the past and reading the forecasts and repeated statements that this Bill was in substance only a rehash of the despised and despicable thing concocted a few years ago by Unionist authors, reserved their opinion and their freedom of action with regard to his measure until they had studied it in print. Of
1140
course there was a possibility that his Bill might be found such as the Irish people could accept with safety and honour. In that spirit he abstained from going into the shady details of the Vote before the Committee. He might point out however that the Local Government Board for Ireland cost £92,411 while the Corresponding Board for Scotland cost only £15,887, a fact which was in itself so striking and significant that comment would spoil it Everybody knew and admitted that instead of being governed six times better, Ireland was governed at least fifty times worse than Scotland. The ways in which the Board managed to spend all this money had been criticised, year after year, with no substantial result. The more expensive an institution was, the greater the number and influence of those who drew a living from it, and who would defend it as their very lives, which no doubt it was. Although this horde of carrion had been quartered upon them in Ireland against their will, even if they had the making and administration of their own laws tomorrow He supposed they would be obliged to pension the carrion. So it would be many long years before they could thank Heaven that they were rid of them. Every year the Chief Secretary for the time being promised reforms in some branch of the services. If those promises or even a tenth of them had been acted upon they should have little to complain of to-day. Why, for instance, with an almost omnipotent Government in power, had not the reforms promised a year ago been carried out? Once a Vote was passed either the promises were forgotten or the Chief Secretary found his nominal subordinates were too strong for him and he could not have his own way with them. They might ostensibly yield to throw him off his guard or to escape his strong hand; but that was only to maintain the old rule in the long run and to leave the mechanism running in the old groove. They might stoop; but it always was to conquer. The stock excuses for not carrying out reforms in Ireland were want of time, want of knowledge, and want of power. To expose the dishonesty of the plea of want of time, one had only to remember that it took no more time to do a good thing than to do a bad thing. Want of knowledge on the part of the Minister, not

1141
being their fault, could be no valid excuse for making them suffer. Ministers, ex-Ministers, and future Ministers, were overflowing with knowledge and with beneficial projects for Great Britain: but it was only after he had undertaken to govern Ireland that an English state-man began reluctantly to learn the rudiments of the situation there. He began by adopting the version supplied to him by his subordinates, which version he was unable to teat. If when the truth began to dawn upon him, in spite of those gentlemen, he attempted to assert himself, they soon made the place too hot for him, and he sought peace at Washington or somewhere else. From their standpoint it was, however, all alien government, and they were under no obligation to discriminate between one Chief Secretary or another, whether he had occupied his position for twenty-four years or only twenty-four hours and whether he represented a Liberal or a Conservative Government.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member was not speaking to the Question before the Committee, which was a vote for the expenses of the Irish Local Government Board. The hon. Member seemed to be making general observations as to the administration of Ireland, but he must confine his remarks to the Local Government Board Vote.
MR. GINNELLsaid he had been endeavouring to explain the action of the President of the Local Government Board, who was the Chief Secretary, and he thought what he said was relevant to the Vote. He did not think it was irrelevant in this connection to deny that no outsiders, good or bad, had a right to control their affairs. For the reason already stated he would deal with only one detail of the working of the Local Government Board, namely, the failure, at the bidding apparently of, his subordinates, of the right hon. Gentleman to allow district councils to avail themselves of the excellent opportunity afforded by the Labourers Act for breaking in upon desert green ranches and sprinkling them with small holdings and with a class of people who were certain to be actually needed as soon as those green ranches could be broken up. This was a class of work which was recognised in England and Scotland to be undoubtedly
1142
of a beneficial character, but it was far more urgently needed in certain parts of Ireland where agriculture was the only industry. If the Chief Secretary were strong enough to favour and promote, as the law enabled him to do, the creation of such temporary holdings as were suggested within the limits of the councils' borrowing powers, a means of living in comparative comfort in Ireland would be found for many who must otherwise leave the country. After they had worked and paid for these holdings for some years they could easily be made purchasers of them under the Land Acts, and the district councils would be relieved of so much of the burden. It was not too late even yet to do this. The only outstanding question was one which the Chief Secretary, as President of the Local Government Board, and no one else could answer. That question was whether he would consider this suggestion with an open mind and exercise the power which the law gave him to put it into operation in spite of the antipathy of his subordinates in the Department.
MR. POWERwarmly supported the suggestion of his hon. friend that the right hon. Gentleman should allow the district councils to satisfy the hunger for small holdings. He also urged encouragement of direct labour in road making—the result of which had been that bettor roads had been produced than under the system of contractors—and the extension of the system of boarding out children. He hoped both these systems would be extended, because, in many cases, the results had been most gratifying. In three cases the children did not know they were Poor Law children; they adopted the names of those who brought them up and became useful members of society. He thought an extension of the system would be most beneficial, because everybody must recognise that the atmosphere of a union was not one in which children should be brought up. While he read with pleasure some of the paragraphs in the Report he considered it on the whole the most dismal document he had ever read. He had always thought that poverty in Ireland was decreasing, but the Report on the contrary showed that poverty and distress were increasing, while the population was; decreasing. The statistics

1143
showed that the daily average of those in receipt of indoor and outdoor relief, including the people being treated in the hospitals, was 106,051 last year as against 101,251 in the previous year; in other words, one in every forty-one of the population were in receipt of relief. He did not think a more damning condemnation of the government of a country could be found. He hoped a better state of things was in store for Ireland, and when the Treasury and those responsible for the Treasury spoke of the demands that were made upon the Treasury purse, he hoped they would bear these figures in mind, and remember that a great deal of the pauperism complained of was the direct result of the system of government to which Ireland was subjected. He ventured last year to suggest that in the working of the Labourers Act it would be of great advantage if the Local Government Board informed the different unions and district councils of Ireland that they had plans of various types of cottages which were at the disposal of the local authorities. Thousands of cottages had been erected under the Labourers Act. Some were good and some were bad. Every man must be interested in seeing that when money was laid out for such purposes it should be well expended, that the cottages should be good, sightly, and at the same time comfortable for those who had to inhabit them. The Local Government Board had seen cottages erected under their plans, and were in a position now to say which in their opinion was the best plan and what class of house was most suitable. He made the suggestion that the Local Government Board should place themselves in communication with the different councils and unions in Ireland offering them access to these plans, because in his opinion it would be much bettor for the local authorities to use these plans than to erect unsuitable cottages.
MR. BOLANDsaid he cordially agreed with his hon. friend that the system of boarding out Poor Law children should be widely extended It was extremely hopeful that the system of boarding out in Ireland was being taken up more and more, because the result had been to merge the Poor Law children in the population of the country,
1144
to remove the stigma of pauperism from them, and to allow them to grow up and take their rightful position in the population of the land. There were many points which the Nationalists would like to discuss in reference to the Local Government Board, but naturally under the present circumstances they felt this was hardly the occasion to refer to them. He would, therefore, confine his observations to one point. For several years past the industrial movement in Ireland had been growing in importance, and it was unfortunate that the Local Government Board had exercised its power over the unions and district councils of the country in a manner which, he thought, detrimental to the efforts now being made in Ireland to recover their lost industries and the efforts of the Irish to run the country for themselves. The action of the Local Government Board in surcharging the guardians had been on occasions shortsighted to a degree, and would not be credited in this country. The Local Government Board seemed to a great extent to have made a fetish of the lowest tender and had surcharged boards of guardians because they had accepted tenders of Irish traders for goods of Irish manufacture at a higher price. The fact that a contractor had put in the lowest tender was sufficient for the Board to say the contract must be accepted, and no allowance was made for the reasons put forward by the guardians for accepting higher tenders. He would call attention to a judgment given in the High Courts recently to show how the question of low tender was regarded in this country. It was reported in The Times of May 1st. In that case the Highways Committee of the Westminister City Council, who had been surcharged for not having accepted the lowest tender, denied that they had been negligent and pleaded that they bad accepted the tender most advantageous to the city. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment, said—
"The next surcharges were those made against the Members of the Highways Committee, and those rested entirely upon the fact that the Committee had not accepted the lowest tenders. While the duties of an auditor under the Act they were considering were much more important than those of an auditor of a company, he was not entitled to question the judgment of honest men who had come to a, bona fide decision on these matters. Perhaps there was no better illustration of that than in

1145
the acceptance of tenders. Any one with knowledge of these matters knew that the greatest mischief sometimes came about by the acceptance of the lowest tender; and, in his opinion, it would be most dangerous to say that, given honest Members of the committee (against whose character or position in the present instance not a word had been said), simply because they had not accepted the lowest tender that was prima facie evidence that they had not discharged their duty. He could well imagine that there might be the acceptance of a higher tender under circumstances that would give rise to suspicion of corruption or want of good faith; but for an auditor to have assumed the responsibility of saying that the tenders in this case ought not to have been accepted, and others ought to have been accepted, because on a hypothetical calculation the council would have saved so much, would be opening the door to a most dangerous practice."
Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Phillimore also gave judgments in which they concurred in that given by the Lord Chief Justice. He had quoted this to show that the acceptance of a tender which was not the lowest, if it was done for good reason, was borne out by the judgment of the High Court. Now, in Ireland boards of guardians had to deal with tenders from Irish contractors whose prices were a little dearer, but whose tenders wore accepted not on grounds of mere sentiment, but because the goods were of better quality, and because the extra service which was got out of them more than made up for the difference in cost. He instanced the question of clothing and of medical supplies. Big English firms tendered at lower prices than the Irish firms. They were able to do so because they were big organisations, and were therefore in a position to cut prices, and compete unfairly with the Irish firms. Though these English firms quoted low figures to begin with, it was perfectly well known that once they established a monopoly prices would go up, and the ratepayers would have to pay higher prices in the future. The Irish firms reduced their tenders, but not to such an extent as the English firms; yet there were advantages to Irish boards in making their contracts with the Irish firms for medical supplies. If there was an outbreak of disease or an epidemic occurred, say in his own county of Kerry, it was convenient that they should be able rapidly to obtain supplies from a medical supply company in Cork, but it would be very inconvenient if the contractor was in
1146
Liverpool or in London, or in some other distant part of the United Kingdom. When they came to the question of clothing, economics played an important part. They might have a low tender for an article which was not pure wool; but the board would give the Irish contractor the contract for the reason that his goods wore wool throughout. Would it not be ridiculous to interfere with the Board on the ground that the English tenderer's price was lower than that of the Irish contractor, when the real consideration was that the English contractor had tendered for goods which were not all wool, whereas the goods of the Irish contractor were wool throughout and had double and treble the lasting value? He read a short time ago that in 1881 the experiment was tried in North Dublin of getting only Irish clothing. They paid a little more for it, but the result of one or two years experience proved that because of the excellence of the goods they were actually making a saving for the ratepayers. They wanted to be able to give a. preference for their own goods, a preference which was demanded by their excellence. It was not a fiscal question, a tariff question, or a free-trade question. They said that though Irish goods were a little bit more expensive yet they were of such excellent quality that a public body was justified in accepting a slightly higher tender from the contractor for Irish goods. The question of industrial revival in Ireland was spreading through all classes, and he was very glad that a number of their public bodies were doing what they could to promote Irish industries. But in any event Irish ratepayers were not fools; they were not going to pay continually for goods which were not of better value than the Irish ones. They were asking for no undue preference in this matter; they merely said that the Lord Chief Justice had decided that when a body honestly accepted a tender which was not the lowest, it was not fair that the auditor should be able to upset contracts simply because a higher tender had been accepted. The importance of this matter was such that a conference of public bodies and boards of guardians had been held, at which they arrived at the conclusion that the best way to further Irish industries was to standardise, as regarded public contracts, the various articles which they

1147
required, so that if in all unions they accepted standard articles, Irish manufacturers would be able to manufacture on a larger scale and be able to tender at lower prices than at present. He hoped that in these matters the right hon. Gentleman would see that the Local Government Board did their best to further the industries of the country. That, unfortunately, had not been done in past years, for often the initiative of the Irish people had been crushed, and instead of having been helped their efforts had been stultified. He trusted that the question would receive the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Department, and that the interests of Irish industries, wherever possible, would be furthered.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he was much obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite for their criticisms and the moderation of their remarks. The Local Government Board of Ireland was under the able Vice-Presidency of Sir Henry Robinson, who was one of the most devoted servants that Ireland could hope to have under any form of government. Sir Henry Robinson was a man whose acquaintance he had made only since his short tenure of office, and, if nothing else came of it, he would be glad that he had been brought into contact with so able and devoted a man, whose interest in Ireland had struck him forcibly every time it had been his great advantage to converse with him. He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would, if they could enjoy the privilege of knowing and conversing with Sir Henry Robinson, share the opinion which he now unhesitatingly expressed of that distinguished public servant. The Local Government Board of any country had difficult duties to perform, and it could not always be popular if it performed those duties properly. No public department could do its duty properly if it did not aim at the popularity which followed after long years of good work rather than the popularity which was sought after by
1148
making easy the path of everybody with whom it was brought into contact. The hon. Member for East Waterford had made a number of interesting observations with which he, as President of the Local Government Board, and the Vice-President entirely sympathised. He had referred to the question of getting the work on the roads done directly rather than indirectly. Experts not only in England, but also in Ireland, entertained the view that it was advantageous to get the work on the roads done directly rather than by contract. Everybody agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for East Waterford in regard to the boarding-out of pauper children. That work could only be done—he was going to say lovingly—with great knowledge of the character of the people to whom the children were sent, and by personally calling upon the children in their cottage homes. He knew of no country where this system of boarding-out was likely to be more successful than among the kindly population of Ireland. The guardians were the authority for this work; but the Local Government Board would do all they could to encourage efforts in this direction. The figures which had been quoted relating to poverty and pauperism in Ireland were of a lamentable and melancholy character, though he thought they were not worse than the figures for England. The Irish Government would do all they could to prevent any increase in pauperism, but the Local Government Board could not be made responsible for the increase in outdoor relief. He thought it was desirable that the Local Government Board should supply to the district councils model plans for the erection of model cottages, which had been proved to be efficient, economical, and convenient in other parts of the country. He would undertake to look into the matter to see exactly how things stood. If he might allude to his personal intercourse with Sir Henry Robinson, that was a point upon which the Vice-President held strong views, and they were quite in accord with the views expressed by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for South

1149
Kerry had made an interesting speech upon an important subject, namely, the question of always being bound to accept the lowest tender. He quite agreed with the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England as to the folly of laying it down as an absolute rule in all circumstances that fiduciary bodies should be bound to accept the lowest tender irrespective of their own opinion of the articles supplied. The cheapest articles were not always the best. They should aim at getting the most suitable article at the cheapest price. In such a matter as clothing, no doubt, the solution was for public bodies to determine by sample the sort of thing wanted, and make it known, and when those interested in Irish industries were able to produce that kind of article he was sure they would have the preference. Medical supplies were somewhat different, because half the cost of drugs supplied to workhouses was paid for out of Imperial funds, and there was not quite the same check on the guardians. In that matter, therefore, it was desirable to take a somewhat strict view. It had sometimes been brought to their notice that some boards of guardians preferred to buy their drugs from Irish firms; but it seemed to be overlooked that many of those drugs wore not of Irish manufacture, and really the Irish firms were only middlemen, and in no sense of the word could they be said to be supplying Irish goods. He did not think, however, that it would be advisable to relax their hold upon boards of guardians. He was not casting any imputation upon Irish boards of guardians, who did their work as well as the English boards of guardians, but they did require looking after, because irregularities had been proved against them—not acts of dishonesty, but acts of favouritism, which cast a burden on the ratepayers which ought not to have been so cast. Whoever controlled the Local Government Board would be playing a very unpatriotic part if they did not maintain a very high standard and keep a sharp control over boards of guardians. He did not think that the Local Govern-
1150
ment Board had in any particular instance exercised their control partially or unwisely.
MR. BARRIEsaid the question of tenders was a very acute one in Ireland, though he did not suggest that there had been any general dereliction of duty in the matter by Irish public bodies, frequently the Local Government Board had had to remind public bodies in Ireland as to what their duty was in regard to tenders. With regard to the Sligo County Council, it would be remembered that the Government had to adopt some very drastic measures in regard to the action of that body in accepting a tender which was at least 50 per cent, higher than the lowest tender, and the Local Government Board had been blamed for declaring that contract null and void. Speaking broadly, he thought public bodies in Ireland had safeguarded the public interest as regarded their acceptance of public tenders. He agreed with what had fallen from the Chief Secretary in regard to contracts for medicines, because there were no more important contracts entered into by boards of guardians. It was extremely important in that matter that tenders should be accepted only from really responsible persons. He knew what he was speaking of when he stated that there were at least three or four firms of the very first standing in Ireland who were fit to compete with any firms in the wholesale drug lineeither in Liverpool or London. He thought the practice of boards of guardians in this matter should be to accept the lowest tender, because there was always this safeguard, that the medical officer was responsible for seeing that the guardians got what they were paying for. Considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer reimbursed the boards of guardians he thought the Chief Secretary had taken a proper attitude in this important; matter. He was surprised to find from the accounts of the Local Government Board that this Government,

1151
which came into office on a cry of retrenchment, and on the principle of economy, should have presented a Budget promising a largo increase of £12,845 in connection with this important department. He cordially joined in the tribute paid by the Chief Secretary to the head of the department. He had a splendid record of public service. In the item for salaries and wages there was an increase of £5,814. There was an allowance of £252 to an auditor while one of the Commissioners was performing other duties. Referring to the transfer from this important department to another public department of one of its chief officials, he presumed that the Government were strictly within their right, but he thought he would have the sympathy of the Committee when He said it was not in the public interest that a permanent official, who had been for any considerable period of years in a particular department, should be transferred to another department. The principle was an unsound one, and should not be lightly resorted to. The cost of the transfer in this case was £252, and he submitted that the Government would have had no difficulty in getting another gentleman equally or probably better qualified as regarded this particular department, to undertake the work without the prospect of any reward. The Estimate also included £3,000 for temporary inspectors, as against £1,020 in the previous year. That was a phenomenal increase, and he awaited with interest any possible explanation which might be given. He asked also for an explanation of the increase with respect to the clerical staff. There was an item in the Estimates for temporary lady inspectors. He suggested that there should be nothing temporary about the employment of lady inspectors who were fulfilling important and valuable work. He had the utmost pleasure in saying, from personal knowledge, that there was no more valuable work done in Ireland than that performed by the lady inspectors in looking after boarded-out children. As
1152
to the cost of the audit of public accounts, he was sure that hon. Members were aware, from the protests which had been addressed to them, that charges made upon public bodies for auditing their accounts wore a cause of much complaint. He had the utmost sympathy with the protests, and yet he felt that a full and efficient audit was an absolute necessity to public bodies in Ireland. No public body had a right to object to it, but he thought it reasonable to suggest that the large annual increase in the cost of the audit was a matter that required close investigation by the Chief Secretary. Last year the Public Audit Department cost the country £13,825, while the receipts amounted to only £6,500. He asked for further information with regard to that £6,500. He submitted that the organisation of the Department called for close supervision, believing that the total cost involved was entirely out of proportion to the work done and the return obtained for it. He knew that considerable extra cost had been thrown on the department through the inquiries necessary under the Labourers Acts. To that additional cost he offered no objection, because he believed the work was necessary and would be increasingly valuable. There was on the Estimates this year a salary of £800 per annum for an additional assistant secretary. What was the meaning of that appointment? While he valued the work of this important department, and had no desire to offer carping criticism, he thought the Committee was entitled to explanations from the Government of the increases to which he had called attention.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange)said the hon. Member for West Meath seemed to be under some misapprehension as to the powers of the Local Government Board under the Labourers Act of last session. The Act gave no increased powers to the Board to acquire unoccupied land for the purposes of the labourer or any other person. He

1153
understood the lion. Gentleman to say that it did. He thought the charge which the hon. Gentleman made had reference to the action of the Board in not seeking to get unoccupied land placed at the disposal of the labourers.
MR. GINNELL: In not allowing the district councils to do it.
MR. CHERRYsaid the hon. Member did not mention any specific case. While the Board had no power to acquire unoccupied land, they might refuse under the Act to assent to a scheme brought forward for the purpose of providing labourers cottages or allotments for labourers where cottages had already been built. When schemes were brought before the Board their inspectors reported upon them. After considering these reports the Board sanctioned or refused the schemes, and in respect of any decision come to an appeal lay to the County Court Judge. There was no allegation, so far as he was aware, that the Board had interfered unjustifiably in the way of objecting to a scheme being carried out. Might he remind the Committee what the powers conferred by the Act of 1906 were? One section enabled the Estates Commissioners to sell, for the purposes of labourers, parcels of unoccupied land which they had acquired under the Act of 1903. Another section enabled the Estates Commissioners, when disposing of unoccupied land, to sell to district councils for the purpose of carrying out schemes sanctioned under the Labourers Act. In other words, they had a voluntary transfer of land instead of compulsory purchase, thus effecting a saving of expense and trouble. These were, so far as he was aware, the only two conditions of the Act which affected the question. The Estates Commissioners were given further powers last year in respect to unoccupied lands to be transferred to district councils, and the Commissioners would, no doubt, turn their attention to this matter when the more pressing
1154
claims of the evicted tenants wore disposed of. He was quite sure that in a very short time the whole of the evicted tenants would be dealt with by the Estates Commissioners. As to the increases in the Local Government Board Vote referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry, N., the whole staff of the Board had had to be increased in consequence of the increase of work imposed upon it by Parliament. Under the Labourers Act of last year, no less than 41,000 cottages had been applied for. Every Act passed for Ireland meant additional expense for administration and clerical work in the different Departments. There was, for instance, £3,000 in this Vote for temporary inspectors who were engaged at the present moment in conducting inquiries all over the country. Then there was a considerable increase in the correspondence with the different county councils, which entailed increased expenditure. The need was not a temporary but a permanent one, and it would not be advisable that some officers in the Department should hold permanent appointments and others only temporary appointments.
MR. MOOREsaid that those who were interested in the labourers question had watched very closely the first year's Estimates after the passing of the Labourers Act. They had been assured, in the first place, that the result of that Act would be a great cheapening of procedure; but when they came to look at the Estimates they found that every penny of the charges had to be met by the local authorities. This year the expenses had risen from £2,000 to £6,000, and the cost of the arbitration proceedings from £2,500 to £7,000. A very significant note appeared at the foot of the page in the Estimates referring to the Labourers Acts, which stated that the Appropriation-in-Aid had been paid by the local bodies. It was very easy for the Government to put down an increase of expenditure in this large-hearted way, but the ratepayers had to make it good.

1155
It was particularly unfortunate that the Government should have chosen this year to increase the expenditure threefold, because in the same year they had reduced the Grants-in-Aid to local bodies in the north of Ireland. In the county of Antrim the grant had been reduced by £2,400, although in North Antrim they had built ten new cottages. This question affected not only the ratepayers, but the labourers, who were least able to protect themselves; because, when the local bodies found that the rates were going up from 6d. to 8d. in the £, to supply labourers cottages, it made the local bodies unwilling to supply the accommodation wanted.
MR. FLAVIN: Would the hon. Member say what he had' done for his labourers?
MR. MOOREsaid he did not want to boast of what he had done; but when he had been asked by the local authority what he would do, he wrote at once to say that he would give four acres of land for labourers cottages. He was therefore not at all ashamed of his record as to what he had done for the labourers on his estate.
MR. DILLONmaintained that the picture given of the results of the Act of last year by the hon. Member was a dishonest one. It had been said that the estimate for inquires was increased. Why? Because more cottages were about to be built in the next two or three years than were built in the previous quarter of a century. A more preposterous and unfounded speech was never delivered than that of the hon. Gentleman. It might be true that more cottages had been built in North Antrim than in Mayo, because in North Antrim there were large numbers of labourers, and in East Mayo there were hardly any. He supported the Bill because he thought the money ought to be spent where the labourers cottages were needed, and therefore his withers were unwrung.
1156
The hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed to speak on this subject at all. If he had any sense of decency—
MR. MOORE: Is that expression not disorderly?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I see nothing disorderly in it. It is a matter of opinion.
MR. MOORE: I beg to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am utterly indifferent to the hon. Member's opinion.
MR. DILLONsaid he was entitled to his opinion. The conduct of the counties in the provinces of Leinster and Munster was most creditable. In most of the counties of Ulster they had been most selfish, and if they had lost money under the Act of last year they had only done so in proportion to the extent which they had shirked their duty to the labourers.
MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that Members for the North of Ireland had always admitted that the Labourers Acts wore not well administered there, but that was the fault of the local authorities. The labourers in the North of Ireland required cottages, however, just as much as the labourers in county Cork. The hon. Member for East Mayo helped them by stealing the money which would have helped to build these houses, and taking it to the south of Ireland. It was true that money had been accumulated which ought to have been, spent long ago, and that money would have been spent had it not been for the act of robbery to which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite lent themselves last session and which deprived the labourers of the north of Ireland of hundreds of cottages. No doubt hon. Members from Ireland sitting below the gangway thought it good business to take £10,000 from the labourers of the north of Ireland to their own part of the country, yet the hon. Member for East Mayo found fault with

1157
the natural indignation which his hon. friend exhibited when the recollection of what happened last session in regard to this matter was brought home to him. He agreed to the full with his two hon. friends below him, and he agreed with the hon. Member for North Derry that the creation of a new Secretary with a salary of £800 a year, together with the other charges to which their attention had boon drawn, was not likely to help the cause of the labourors in the north of Ireland. They first of all robbed them of £10,000 a year, and then asked them to pay what appeared upon the face of it to be an unusually large charge. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give some explanation with regard to this.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought it would be desirable before the discussion closed that there should be some further explanation of the enormous increase in the Estimate for the ensuing year. The Attorney-General might be right in saying that to some extent it was due to the additional number of applications that were pending by reason of the Act of last session. At the same time it was impossible that that could account for the enormous increase of £12,000, and it was equally impossible that it could explain the necessity of a new permanent official at a salary of £800 a year. The great increase in the number of applications could not go on. There was last year a very large increase owing to the increased facility, but that increase would every year get proportionately less, and the duties of the Local Government Board in connection with the Labourers, Act would also decrease. Under the Act of last session the increased expenses incidental to the larger demand anticipated was supposed to be financed by an Act of the same session by £9,000;the Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of cutting down the number of Judges by two and of reducing the Lord Chancellor's salary from £8,000 to £2,000, but they never made the slightest
1158
effort to pass it. They deliberately allowed it to remain oven to the end of the session, and they did it without the slightest complaint or remonstrance from hon. Members for Ireland below the Gangway.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. You cannot discuss this on the question of the Vote. The Local Government Board is not responsible for the failure to pass legislation.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought the Deputy-Chairman had not quite appreciated his point. He was calling attention to the large increase in the Estimate in connection with the administration of the Labourers Act for the ensuing year, and He was pointing out that the fund contemplated by the Bill of last year to finance the Act had not been provided. With the greatest confidence he submitted that that was perfectly in order in connection with the subject they were now discussing.
MR. DILLON,on the point of order, said that even if it were in order to discuss this matter from the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, he would call attention to the fact that that Act abolishing the Judges had nothing whatever to do with the increased expenditure thrown upon the Votes.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that did not at all get rid of the point that while there was not merely an increased Estimate of over £12,000, but there had also been no provision made such as was contemplated, namely, an annual sum of £9,000, to finance last year's Act.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: This is a Local Government Vote.
MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid that it was the Local Government Board which had to administer the Labourers Act, and it was their administration and financial

1159
management that had been the subject of the debate. He had listened with the greatest pleasure to the by no means exaggerated terms in which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Vice-President of the Local Government Board. He had been officially connected with him for a few years, and very frequently came in contact with him. His experience of Sir Henry Robinson coincided with that of the right hon. Gentleman, that in the Vice-President they had an officer whose whole desire was to discharge his duties efficiently, and with due regard to every interest concerned in Ireland. On the question of the lowest tender, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Kerry, that to lay down an inflexible rule that in every case the lowest tender must necessarily be accepted by boards of guardians, or by any other public bodies, would be a very great mistake; but he could not conceive it possible that the occasion would ever arise, because if boards of guardians were compelled to accept in every case the lowest tender they would be obliged to accept the shoddy goods of an English firm, while they could have got for a slight additional sum pure woollen goods from an Irish firm. But the answer to that was obvious. No sensible board of guardians would ever accept a tender for shoddy goods; they would require a sample, and would contract for delivery according to the approved sample. He had been pleased to hoar, however, the strongly expressed views of the hon. Member for South Kerry in favour of protecting Irish industries. By accepting the higher tender they could encourage Irish industries against English manufactured goods, rather than accept the English tender at the lower price. That was, he thought, the elementary lesson of protection, and he was glad that the idea at least on the benches below the Gangway, among hon. Members from Ireland, was making some headway. He could only say that he thoroughly endorsed what had been said by the right hon.
1160
Gentleman in regard to the question of the lowest tender. He quite agreed that no such inflexible rule should be, or ever had been, adopted by the Local Government Board. But speaking generally, everything else being equal, he thought the lowest tender should be accepted, and the possible danger of getting inferior goods could be obviated by deciding on a sample, and requiring a delivery up to the standard and quality of that sample. Subject to that limitation he quite agreed that the Local Government Board could not lay down the inflexible rule that in every case the lowest tender must be accepted.
MR. BIRRELLsaid lie had listened with great pleasure to the very high character which had been given of the Vice-President of the Local Government Board by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The increased Estimate for the local Government Board was due partly to the natural increment of great offices of this kind, owing to the desire of officials for higher salaries, but was mainly accounted for by the extra work thrown upon the Board by the new Labourers Act. The number of applications for cottages and sites now amounted to 46,000, and it was felt that things would get into a hopeless muddle unless a separate department with an assistant secretary was organised. These applications caused an enormous increase of work; there were inquiries to be made, sites to be selected, arbitrations, and all the rest of it, and it was found that a separate department to deal with the work was absolutely necessary if hopeless confusion was to be avoided. These cottages were to be built all over Ireland and the money had got to be repaid; so that there would be work for many a long year, in connection with these Acts, for the Local Government Board to do. He, therefore, thought that there was nothing at all improvident in this matter. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Derry as to a public audit, it was a matter which he would look into

1161
and ascertain what the explanation of it was. Sir Henry Robinson was to have been present that night, but he was too unwell to leave Ireland. He would look into the matter and see whether any reduction could be effected in what certainly appeared to be a large figure. He did not want to go into the controversy about the cottages in the north of Ireland. They had been told by the hon. Gentleman opposite that his predecessor was a sort of highway robber, who in combination with other persons of the same kidney, inflicted a cruel blow upon several counties in Ireland. He must tell hon. Gentlemen that the object of Section 18 was to secure an equitable distribution. The following example would show the inequity of the former method of distribution—county Antrim, share for the year 1905–6, £2,453, and number of cottages erected since 1891, 212; county Cork, £3,466 and 2,030 respectively; Tyrone, £1,926 and 184; Limerick, £1,553 and 2,647; Down £2,010 and 235. As to the distribution of the Exchequer grants, he pointed out that the money had to be allocated among the various counties, according to their liabilities under the Labourers Acts. If that were robbery, it was one of which he should be very proud.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he would like to see more equity in dealing with the north of Ireland. His hon. friend would have exhausted the strongest Parliamentary language permissible if he had expressed half of what the hon. Members representing Ulster thought of this deliberate spoliation and robbery, by which money had been filched away from the labourers in the north simply because they were Unionists.
MR. BIRRELL: Is it in order for the hon. Member to impute motives?
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that it was no doubt only in order to impute motives when one happened to be outside the House. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Surely the hon. Member knows that it is worse to impute motives inside the House?
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he knew it was safer to impute them outside, but if requested to withdraw the expression, he would do so at once. The hon. Member for East Mayo had made a more violent and vitriolic speech than usual. He had said that the counties in the North of Ireland were being justly punished by having this amount of money taken away from them for the building of cottages, because he thought those cottages should be erected in the south and west of Ireland, where political opinions were more in accord with his own.
MR. DILLONsaid that no money was taken away. The distribution had been altered because certain places in the North of Ireland had refused to spend the money on cottages.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Ulster Members had never defended the action of certain local authorities in refusing to build cottages, but had brought pressure on thorn to spend the money at their disposal. The Government had deliberately said that, because local authorities had not spent the money at their disposal in the North of Ireland in every case, they would punish the labourers for the fault of those local authorities. ["No," and "Hear, hear."] The money would have been spent if the Government had chosen to put pressure on the local authorities, instead of robbing them as they wore doing now, simply because they were Unionist, and devoting the money to their new allies below the gangway. He joined with the representatives of Ulster in making a most earnest protest against what they believed to be a deliberate injustice to the part of the country they represented and one which, He feared, was dictated by purely political motives.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid there were

1163
certain aspects of this Vote which required more attention. He had had a long experience in drawing up Estimates, and he knew how difficult it was to get them passed by the Treasury and through the House. He was bound to say that he had never before, in any Estimate, seen an increase so little justified by any arguments from the front bench opposite He understood that the money administered under the Labourers Act amounted to about £60,000 a year. If hon. Members would look at the heads A and F for 1907–8, and compare them with 1906–7, they would find that there was an increase of nearly £15,000. That was a very large amount. The increase of expenses on the sum administered had been 25 per cent. Such an increase, so little justified, he had never known. Five or six per cent, of the total cost for expenses of administration was amply sufficient. He could only protest that these Estimates showed that the administrative charges were largely in excess of the proportion they ought to bear to the amounts administered. Some check should be put upon the extravagance in administration. The Departments in Ireland seemed to administer on principles totally different from those applied in Scotland or England. When he was in the Scottish Education Department any increase in administrative cost, however small, was most jealously judged, and rightly so. The Committee should take into consideration the lax manner in which matters regarding Irish salaries were administered.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYexpressed satisfaction at the appointment of additional inspectors to carry out the administrative work of the Labourers Act. It was chiefly in connection with that Act that the additional expense had been incurred. The district councils and the labourers desired that the Act should be administered efficiently. The ratepayers in the county of Limerick taxed themselves up to Is. in the pound, and they thought
1164
it was only fair that they should get a larger share of the Exchequer contribution. When the Bill was going through the House last year he asked the Chief Secretary to give the district council who taxed themselves so heavily an additional grant, but his request was not acceded to the hon. Members from the North of Ireland who had spoken on this subject had no reason to complain of the way in which the Exchequer contribution had been dealt with.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

SUPPLY [25TH APRIL].
Resolutions reported.
SUPPLY [25TH APRIL].

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,758,400 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other charges connnected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  2. "That a sum not exceeding £837,900 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay, to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £370,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1908."

  Resolutions agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley),—put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes before Eleven o'clock.